Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Midnitewolf

DDs, gun velocity and shell travel time, nothing makes sense.

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,252
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles

So recently I was trying to find a ship that might have a similar gun profile to the Marceau since I was considering buying her but tend to not like really floaty shells and wanted to really get a good idea if I could tolerate/work with the Marceau's shell arcs.  I decided to do some comparisons of shell arcs and flight times in the Training room with existing DDs I had just to get a baseline and nothing makes sense.

 

I used the following ships for comparisons just to get a wide range:

Lightning - 774 m/s velocity

Akizuki - 1000 m/s velocity

Guepard - 700 m/s velocity

Kidd - 793 m/s velocity

Halland 825 m/s velocity.

 

Just looking at the gun velocity, Guepard shells show have extremely long shell travel times while the Akizuki should have extremely short travel times but the results are very odd.

For example, some of the really odd results are the Kidd with 793 m/s shell velocity has a significantly longer shell travel time than the Guepard at 700 m/s.  At 12 km, the 700 m/s shell of the Guepard reaches the target roughly 1.5 second faster than the 793m/s shells of the Kidd.  The Akizuki meanwhile which is a full 300 m/s faster at the muzzle only reaches 12 km about 0.4 seconds faster than the Guepard shell.   The Lightning however with its 774 m/s muzzle velocity shell almost exactly matches the performance of the Guepard's 700 m/s muzzle velocity shell. 

I know there is an air drag coefficient applied to shell ballistic calculations but I find it odd that a 100 mm shell from the Akizuki slung out at 1000 m/s has so much drag that it only reaches 12 km 0.4 seconds faster and a fat 139mm shell from Guepard slung out at 700 m/s or that a smaller 127mm shell from the Kidd slung out at nearly 100 m/s faster than the shell from the Guepard takes a massive 1.5 seconds longer to reach the same 12 km range.

Seems WG took some real liberties when balancing these ships and made it so trying to compare anything by the ship parameters is pretty worthless. 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,327
[SALVO]
Members
2,518 posts
6,693 battles
3 minutes ago, Midnitewolf said:

I know there is an air drag coefficient applied to shell ballistic calculations but I find it odd that a 100 mm shell from the Akizuki slung out at 1000 m/s has so much drag that it only reaches 12 km 0.4 seconds faster and a fat 139mm shell from Guepard slung out at 700 m/s or that a smaller 127mm shell from the Kidd slung out at nearly 100 m/s faster than the shell from the Guepard takes a massive 1.5 seconds longer to reach the same 12 km range.

Lighter shells get affected more by drag. Seems to make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,110
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,762 battles

Dont delve too deeply into the mechanics here...

...you will not be happy with what you find.

I too was somewhat disappointed with Frieslands air drag...but it is what it is. WG balances to their own tune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[META_]
Members
1,617 posts
17,223 battles
33 minutes ago, Midnitewolf said:

So recently I was trying to find a ship that might have a similar gun profile to the Marceau since I was considering buying her but tend to not like really floaty shells and wanted to really get a good idea if I could tolerate/work with the Marceau's shell arcs.  I decided to do some comparisons of shell arcs and flight times in the Training room with existing DDs I had just to get a baseline and nothing makes sense.

 

I used the following ships for comparisons just to get a wide range:

Lightning - 774 m/s velocity

Akizuki - 1000 m/s velocity

Guepard - 700 m/s velocity

Kidd - 793 m/s velocity

Halland 825 m/s velocity.

 

Just looking at the gun velocity, Guepard shells show have extremely long shell travel times while the Akizuki should have extremely short travel times but the results are very odd.

For example, some of the really odd results are the Kidd with 793 m/s shell velocity has a significantly longer shell travel time than the Guepard at 700 m/s.  At 12 km, the 700 m/s shell of the Guepard reaches the target roughly 1.5 second faster than the 793m/s shells of the Kidd.  The Akizuki meanwhile which is a full 300 m/s faster at the muzzle only reaches 12 km about 0.4 seconds faster than the Guepard shell.   The Lightning however with its 774 m/s muzzle velocity shell almost exactly matches the performance of the Guepard's 700 m/s muzzle velocity shell. 

I know there is an air drag coefficient applied to shell ballistic calculations but I find it odd that a 100 mm shell from the Akizuki slung out at 1000 m/s has so much drag that it only reaches 12 km 0.4 seconds faster and a fat 139mm shell from Guepard slung out at 700 m/s or that a smaller 127mm shell from the Kidd slung out at nearly 100 m/s faster than the shell from the Guepard takes a massive 1.5 seconds longer to reach the same 12 km range.

Seems WG took some real liberties when balancing these ships and made it so trying to compare anything by the ship parameters is pretty worthless. 

 

 

The guepard has 139s ......inertia...kinda like firing a 22 pellet vs a .177 pellet...the 22 loses speed slower than the .177 because of weight....also when considering the Marceau it fires so fast that its easier to aim by holding the left button and adjust as it sprays...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,252
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles
23 minutes ago, eviltane said:

Lighter shells get affected more by drag. Seems to make sense to me.

However bigger shells have more surface area and more service area means more area for the wind to drag on.

Also the shape of the shell makes a huge difference.  If you combine high velocity with a more aerodynamically shaped shell that is smaller, it actually should retain velocity much more than a larger caliber, with a lower velocity.

In any case, I was just shocked at the huge difference in shell travel times though I am not sure they are based on "historical" ballistic properties or just made them up as they went along.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[META_]
Members
1,617 posts
17,223 battles
39 minutes ago, Midnitewolf said:

So recently I was trying to find a ship that might have a similar gun profile to the Marceau since I was considering buying her but tend to not like really floaty shells and wanted to really get a good idea if I could tolerate/work with the Marceau's shell arcs.  I decided to do some comparisons of shell arcs and flight times in the Training room with existing DDs I had just to get a baseline and nothing makes sense.

 

I used the following ships for comparisons just to get a wide range:

Lightning - 774 m/s velocity

Akizuki - 1000 m/s velocity

Guepard - 700 m/s velocity

Kidd - 793 m/s velocity

Halland 825 m/s velocity.

 

Just looking at the gun velocity, Guepard shells show have extremely long shell travel times while the Akizuki should have extremely short travel times but the results are very odd.

For example, some of the really odd results are the Kidd with 793 m/s shell velocity has a significantly longer shell travel time than the Guepard at 700 m/s.  At 12 km, the 700 m/s shell of the Guepard reaches the target roughly 1.5 second faster than the 793m/s shells of the Kidd.  The Akizuki meanwhile which is a full 300 m/s faster at the muzzle only reaches 12 km about 0.4 seconds faster than the Guepard shell.   The Lightning however with its 774 m/s muzzle velocity shell almost exactly matches the performance of the Guepard's 700 m/s muzzle velocity shell. 

I know there is an air drag coefficient applied to shell ballistic calculations but I find it odd that a 100 mm shell from the Akizuki slung out at 1000 m/s has so much drag that it only reaches 12 km 0.4 seconds faster and a fat 139mm shell from Guepard slung out at 700 m/s or that a smaller 127mm shell from the Kidd slung out at nearly 100 m/s faster than the shell from the Guepard takes a massive 1.5 seconds longer to reach the same 12 km range.

Seems WG took some real liberties when balancing these ships and made it so trying to compare anything by the ship parameters is pretty worthless. 

 

 

The guepard has 139s ......inertia...kinda like firing a 22 pellet vs a .177 pellet...the 22 loses speed slower than the .177 because of weight....also when considering the Marceau it fires so fast that its easier to aim by holding the left button and adjust as it sprays...the nice things about the Marceau is DFAA,better AA , 7.0 concealment  vs 7.8 on kleber,

Edited by Meta_Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,420 posts
40,888 battles

You are forgetting the mass of the shell.

A shell with more mass retains speed over distance. So 700mps shell with more mass can go farther than a 1000mps shell with less. 

The velocity stated is initial shell velocity.

In rifles its stated as muzzle velocity. But in rifles, the important number is muzzle energy which is a value at a given distance. Usually in military and hunting circles, about 100 yards or the metric equivalent.

In Naval gunnery, this value is variable as these are larger shells. And are affected by drag more along with other variables.

The US Navy chose 127mm as the standard secondary gun and primary for DDs because it had very good overall performance over distance with the shell mass and velocity retention.

The IJN followed suit for a time, but loading was difficult because of not completely copying the gun, but rather making one of their own. As a result, weight was reduced for the shell.

This gave it similar performance, but rate of fire was still slow. So eventually IJN adopted rather late, the 100mm. It was a scaled down gun, but shell velocity gave it close to mid range performance they were happy with.

The French went with heavy. But it works because of the retention over distance.

The RN went with quite a few. They had issues with 134s and it shows in game.

The RN has always been trying new guns because with a constant arms race in place, it made sense to be a step ahead. The quick firing dual purpose of the Warspite it turns out is the better gun overall. The RN eventually went larger but painstakingly tuned and tweaked to not degrade performance.

Soviets just went with what works and stayed with it. Often times, it was an overbuilt gun, but it got it done.

Regina Maria liked high rate of fire and really hated planes. But they also hated carrying shells about. Their guns were designed more for convenience and performance was dependent on combat data. However, they didn't exactly shine in WW2. So they went big if it can fit. But small if it didn't. And it was more about making sure they don't lose the ship.

Germany, well, let's just say that they liked to experiment and often did with comical iterations.

But lessons learned from Jutland was that they don't shoot fast or accurate. So they went Dark Helmut and wanted both.

Some of the kriegsmarine guns are great, but they were also slow in traverse and elevation. Rate of fire was steady but hardly the lighting field of Flash Gordon.

They are middle and they show it.

 

 

RN final iterations are accurate, because wasting ammo is stupid.

USN, accurate, fast, and consistently good because they didn't have to develop more calibers once they adopted one.

IJN, quality of range, fire rate, and accuracy dropped off because they went light across the board. They never were completely happy with what they had.

Germany, probably could have made better guns only Rodney and KGV settled that debate. Tirpitz, never left the barn so to speak. Probably could have been a game changer if they had time.

France. Dropped twice never fired is a running joke, but the French had decent guns. Again a case of not being able to develop more.

Italy. Same as Germany. Only Taranto ended the dream early.

As for Euro. Well, anything made by bofors is good. Everyone else copied at least one thing they made. That says a lot.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[META_]
Members
1,617 posts
17,223 battles
4 minutes ago, Midnitewolf said:

However bigger shells have more surface area and more service area means more area for the wind to drag on.

Also the shape of the shell makes a huge difference.  If you combine high velocity with a more aerodynamically shaped shell that is smaller, it actually should retain velocity much more than a larger caliber, with a lower velocity.

In any case, I was just shocked at the huge difference in shell travel times though I am not sure they are based on "historical" ballistic properties or just made them up as they went along.  

 

Midnitewolf i hate doing this but I don't agree with you on the shells velocity.....larger shells have more inertia.....a .177 is a high velocity pellet but loses speed faster than a 22 caliber pellet ..the 22 caliber actuallydoes more damage at probablylittle over half the speed also..the .177 can break the sound barrier , the .22 caliber no where near that speed but has more stoppingpower...I love my .177 though,lol...I use both to plink in my yard....mthe higher volume to the air drag doesn't matter..its the weight when they are close to the same shape....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
583
[GRAVE]
Members
1,363 posts
19,530 battles

Air Drag. A shell that can cut through the air has less air drag than a shell that punches through the air. Generally speaking, shells with low air drag tend to be light shells fired at a very high muzzle velocity (>850m/s) but low shell weight means they lose energy faster, which explains why Japanese 100mm guns have 1000m/s muzzle velocity but have floaty arcs past 9km. This is also how you can get the Soviet 180s on Nevesky, Pyotr Brgation, and Tallinn have the great pen and arcs they have. Caveat; too heavy a shell and very little air drag can make for wonky dispersion, just look at Roma as an example.

Soviet 130s tend to be slightly heavier, so they retain their energy and shell arcs out to about 15km

Mid Tier FR 139s and American 5in/38s, otoh, are fairly heavy shells fired at a low muzzle velocity (<800m/s). Heavy shells preserve energy due to their shear mass, but do not go through the air as nicely, which makes their shell arcs very floaty, with these shells being hardly effective past 8km.

the FR 139s on T8-10 FR DDs are heavier than the prior 139s, have a faster muzzle velocity (840m/s) and are more efficient at going through the air, which means they can retain their energy and useful shell arcs up to almost 16-18km
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,309
[A-I-M]
Members
3,550 posts
23,328 battles
5 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

[excerpted]

As for Euro. Well, anything made by bofors is good. Everyone else copied at least one thing they made. That says a lot.

 

Heavens be praised for a lot of American boys that the Japanese chose that awful Hotchkiss gun instead of Bofors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,420 posts
40,888 battles
1 minute ago, Pugilistic said:

Heavens be praised for a lot of American boys that the Japanese chose that awful Hotchkiss gun instead of Bofors. 

Yeah, and the RN bombers flying slow, yet the kriegsmarine were unable to track, lead, or shoot them down unless by accident when Tirpitz was atracked by Ark Royal.

I can only imagine the bomber pilots looking at all that AA whizzing by them and saying: "I think these blokes are blind as a bat. But let's not help them improve their aim shall we, drop it like it's hot 🔥."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
493
[KERMT]
Members
1,041 posts

This game is not reality, their physics is not accurate at all. 
It is like trying to justify the way things act in Star Wars with Science. 

You never will. 

 

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,733
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,753 posts
15,295 battles
56 minutes ago, Midnitewolf said:

However bigger shells have more surface area and more service area means more area for the wind to drag on.

What's more important is the surface area to volume/mass ratio.

Internal volume and therefore mass increases faster than surface area.

For instance if you take the British 4.7in/50 example there, the shell diameter is 4.7in, so has a cross section of 17.35in2, and weighs 62lb. It has a cross sectional density of 3.57lb/sq in.

The Japanese 100mm gun has a cross section of 12.19in2, but weighs 28.67lb. It has a cross sectional density of 2.35lb/sq in.

In short the British example weighs 2.16x as much, but has a cross section area only 1.42x as much. Mass outweighs the increasing drag.

 

As others have said the ballistic performance is controlled by muzzle velocity, shell mass and drag. Mass is available in game, but drag is mostly hidden away. In the examples you give -

Lightning - 774 m/s velocity, 28.12 kg, 0.343 drag

Akizuki - 1000 m/s velocity 13kg, 0.314 drag

Guepard - 700 m/s velocity 40.2kg, 0.3 drag

Kidd - 793 m/s velocity 24.5kg, 0.347 drag

Halland 825 m/s velocity. 23.5kg, 0.322 drag

Higher mass is basically an advantage, and the stand out high mass shell is the Guepard, with Lightning also having a good mass for it's size. Lower numbers are better for air drag, and most of the ships are fairly similar, though Guepard does best and the USN's 5in/38 does worse. Drag in-game seems to be loosely modeled on shell shape (crh) and modern shells tend to have better drag - hence old Yorck with 0.48 drag on her AP shells from circa 1910 had remarkably bad ballistics.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
859
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
2,072 posts
15,091 battles

too much math.... my head hurts...but good stuff here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
649
[GUYS]
Alpha Tester
2,756 posts
4,221 battles

If you fired your guns in a pure vacuum, then yes, the stat card would be correct. But do me a favor. Try and throw a feather. Then try and throw a brick. You *should* be able to throw said feather faster, right? I mean, after all it is extrodinarily light, right? Well, that lightness is it's downfall when factoring in air resistance. That lightweight object gets slowed down much faster than the heavy brick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,420 posts
40,888 battles
2 hours ago, Salvo_Creative said:

This game is not reality, their physics is not accurate at all. 
It is like trying to justify the way things act in Star Wars with Science. 

You never will. 

 

 

The plasma bolts from blasters are just a gas burned and then accelerated. Think mini rail gun that shoots heated gas. Tibanna gas= xenon.  Turbo lasers, particle accelerator with a heated gas charge.

Light saber, gas plasma coalescing into a column by induced magnetic field. Different charges repel, hence the saber clash. Each saber would have a different charge. Positive or negative, can be easily inverted and visual cues would be the color so you don't have that Lonestar/Helmut tangle.

Hyperdrive, I am in Alpha test on that one, I will get back to you.

Communication, quantum comms are already being looked at. See Bell Labs.

Droids, could have been easily built now, but employers want someone to talk to, not have a heated argument with.

Science fiction always precedes science fact. It's because the human imagination is 90 % spot on.

*Enters supermarket, doors slide open.

Enterprising indeed.

*Puts nerd and science card away before anyone else notices.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
Members
1,797 posts
5,635 battles

Hop on over to JBM Ballistics and run some of your own experiments. Yes, that’s little guns, not big ones, but G1/G7 drag models don’t care about the size of the projectile. It can give you a feel for some pretty counter intuitive things over just 1 km of flight. 

Something that any long distance rifle shooter knows: ballistic efficiency beats muzzle velocity at long range every time...and that’s independent of bore size.

Higher mass is an advantage IF it creates a more aerodynamic projectile capable of retaining velocity. Beyond that, it had as inherent advantage with equivalent or comparable form factor and velocity. 

An extreme example:

Caliber/Weight MV (fps) BC (G1) ToF @ 2000 (s)
.30 / 168 BTHP 2960 .450 4.45
.264 / 147 ELD-M 2800 .697 4.05

Those are Doppler Radar verified results from Hornady. 2550 inches of drop on the .30-06, 2112 inches on the 6.5 PRC. The smaller, lighter bullet starts slower and gets there faster with less drop.

https://jbmballistics.com

Edited by Mahrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,588
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,009 posts
4,625 battles
19 hours ago, Midnitewolf said:

 

 

Also keep in mind that barrel life is not a metric in this game... 

 

Look at the 100mm type 98  - in real life it had 350-400 round barrel life. 

 

Now compare that to the 5 inch mk 38 , which as a barrel life of 4600 rounds. 

 

There are a lot of cherry picked stats used for balancing in this game, the reality in game is that the akizuki can shoot as many shells as it likes with no consequence while retaining its barrel life, and it also has AP shells which it never had in real life. 

IRL if an akizuki experience the action of 1 match in wows it would need to steam back to port for its barrels to be replaced.. 

 

19 hours ago, Midnitewolf said:

 

Seems WG took some real liberties when balancing these ships and made it so trying to compare anything by the ship parameters is pretty worthless. 

 

 

exactly, and to add to this they amplified some parameters by not providing the consequences of having such parameters.. Like I stated above - High velocity rounds = low barrel life which is of no consequence in this game.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,122
[TDRB]
Members
5,153 posts
13,741 battles
20 hours ago, Midnitewolf said:

So recently I was trying to find a ship that might have a similar gun profile to the Marceau since I was considering buying her but tend to not like really floaty shells and wanted to really get a good idea if I could tolerate/work with the Marceau's shell arcs.  I decided to do some comparisons of shell arcs and flight times in the Training room with existing DDs I had just to get a baseline and nothing makes sense.

 

I used the following ships for comparisons just to get a wide range:

Lightning - 774 m/s velocity

Akizuki - 1000 m/s velocity

Guepard - 700 m/s velocity

Kidd - 793 m/s velocity

Halland 825 m/s velocity.

 

Just looking at the gun velocity, Guepard shells show have extremely long shell travel times while the Akizuki should have extremely short travel times but the results are very odd.

For example, some of the really odd results are the Kidd with 793 m/s shell velocity has a significantly longer shell travel time than the Guepard at 700 m/s.  At 12 km, the 700 m/s shell of the Guepard reaches the target roughly 1.5 second faster than the 793m/s shells of the Kidd.  The Akizuki meanwhile which is a full 300 m/s faster at the muzzle only reaches 12 km about 0.4 seconds faster than the Guepard shell.   The Lightning however with its 774 m/s muzzle velocity shell almost exactly matches the performance of the Guepard's 700 m/s muzzle velocity shell. 

I know there is an air drag coefficient applied to shell ballistic calculations but I find it odd that a 100 mm shell from the Akizuki slung out at 1000 m/s has so much drag that it only reaches 12 km 0.4 seconds faster and a fat 139mm shell from Guepard slung out at 700 m/s or that a smaller 127mm shell from the Kidd slung out at nearly 100 m/s faster than the shell from the Guepard takes a massive 1.5 seconds longer to reach the same 12 km range.

Seems WG took some real liberties when balancing these ships and made it so trying to compare anything by the ship parameters is pretty worthless. 

 

 

World of Warships is set in a fantasy world where DD's can reload torpedoes while doing violent evasive maneuvers & traveling at top speed, making it suicidal to go on deck in real life.  In this fantasy world one should not expect the laws of physics to be applied, yeah, stare decisis is totally ignored.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
Members
1,797 posts
5,635 battles

The time/distance compression is funky too. A shell with a MV of 800 m/s traveling 12km or more in 8s, for example,  is... interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
236
[ASHIP]
Members
226 posts
12,170 battles
On 10/21/2020 at 2:21 PM, eviltane said:

Lighter shells get affected more by drag. Seems to make sense to me.

Uh huh. That is why Bismarck's 38s had nice horizontal penetration at long range, unlike the myth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,327
[SALVO]
Members
2,518 posts
6,693 battles
1 hour ago, Mahrs said:

The time/distance compression is funky too. A shell with a MV of 800 m/s traveling 12km or more in 8s, for example,  is... interesting. 

This time distance compression is in my own personal thinking the single biggest reason why CVs fundamentally don’t work in this game.  In WoWs even the slowest prop planes cover Kilometers (and spend time inside AA) like jet fighters.

 

If you are wondering distance is compressed by a factor of about 5.  

 

Edited by eviltane
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
493
[KERMT]
Members
1,041 posts
On 10/22/2020 at 9:40 AM, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

The plasma bolts from blasters are just a gas burned and then accelerated. Think mini rail gun that shoots heated gas. Tibanna gas= xenon.  Turbo lasers, particle accelerator with a heated gas charge.

Light saber, gas plasma coalescing into a column by induced magnetic field. Different charges repel, hence the saber clash. Each saber would have a different charge. Positive or negative, can be easily inverted and visual cues would be the color so you don't have that Lonestar/Helmut tangle.

Hyperdrive, I am in Alpha test on that one, I will get back to you.

Communication, quantum comms are already being looked at. See Bell Labs.

Droids, could have been easily built now, but employers want someone to talk to, not have a heated argument with.

Science fiction always precedes science fact. It's because the human imagination is 90 % spot on.

*Enters supermarket, doors slide open.

Enterprising indeed.

*Puts nerd and science card away before anyone else notices.

 

 

Some of that info is from the EU which is now legends and no longer canon, 

Sorry, I had a big spanner I wanted to throw in there. 

Star Wars is the best example of a nice concept turned into a flaming pile of poo over time. 

Unsure where I was going with this, other than to blatantly bag on star wars. 

Just be happy warships does not have planes in space..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,420 posts
40,888 battles

I miss the old stuff. But Disney did it because of money. They didn't want to share with all those authors of really cool books. Those authors expanded it far more than Lucas ever could. And Disney just slapped them in the face and said : "Doesn't exist." 

Sort of like Galactica 1981 series that followed after the old series BSG. A true fan refuses to acknowledge that one. But at least that made sense.

Disney just threw away a gold mine like some moron at a mosh pit full of people with mono. 

I swear, if they ever ask me to write, direct, and produce a Star Wars. I am going to bring it all back. Because I am a huge fan. Disney is a huge butt hat. 

They don't even know how to draw decent anime TDs. They need an expert bad. They should go local. There is scores of talent on the East Coast alone and right in their backyard. 

Maybe, when I build this Hyperdrive some day from parts found lying around the house and a swiss army knife, I will make a ton of money and buy Disney. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×