weird detail, but this has been bugging me far too long...

[shinytrashcan]

...but what are those things on the bridge and some other places? What are they for, how do they work?

I have seen them in similar forms on quite a few ships, most often on open bridges or other platforms exposed to the elements. They must have some purpose, obviously, but I can't figure it out. Probably something super obvious/simple, still I don't get it.

Thanks in advance for all the helpful or at least humorous answers.

Edit: I realize this might be the wrong forum, so mods feel free to move to where ever this belongs.

[SaiIor_Moon]

I think that's just...reinforced superstructure maybe?

[Navalpride33]

My vote....

Those elements are used for ventilation...

[HamAndCheez]

I think those are wind deflectors/wind "channels" to direct spray and rain away from the bridge.

From a moderator on a Royal Navy subreddit:

 

"The Royal Navy used open bridges because its captains preferred them - David K Brown describes the RN as being 'unanimous in advocating open bridges'. There were several reasons why this was the case. An open bridge gave maximum situational awareness. Most of the RN's ships of WWII were designed at a time when the main sensor technology used at sea was the human eyeball. An open bridge gave the greatest opportunities for seeing out, in all conditions. The view from a closed bridge would suffer from spray and rain, even with windscreen wipers, as well as from glare at night. There were also no posts or pillars to block the view from anywhere on the bridge. Given that, in the first half of the war, up to 50% of submarine contacts were made with the naked eye alone, it seems like this was justified. The open design also made it easier to judge the weather, especially the wind. The other main advantage of the open bridge was the ease of communication across it. All of the main officers were on the bridge, along with the lookouts and signallers. There was little to interrupt communications between any of these personnel. Finally, there was a belief that cold air helped to prevent sleepiness and fatigue. While this was later proved false, it was commonly held at the time.

The bridges were less exposed than they might seem, especially to the weather. From Hero and Hereward in 1934, the RN introduced a new form of bridge to its destroyer classes. This was repeatedly trialled in wind tunnels to ensure that wind was properly deflected away from the bridge. As a result, the bridge was free from wind even at top speed. To protect against rain and spray, there was a long glass windscreen, fitted with two Kent clear-view screens to ensure constant vision. Older or smaller ships, though, had more exposed bridge positions, that were less comfortable to use for long periods. The RN moved away from open bridges in the post-war period. The increased spread and effectiveness of radar (and to a lesser extent sonar) meant that naked-eye visibility was much less important. Meanwhile, the threat of nuclear weapons led to a desire to keep the crew inside, away from fallout."

 

[shinytrashcan]

5 minutes ago, HamAndCheez said:

From Hero and Hereward in 1934, the RN introduced a new form of bridge to its destroyer classes. This was repeatedly trialled in wind tunnels to ensure that wind was properly deflected away from the bridge. As a result, the bridge was free from wind even at top speed. To protect against rain and spray, there was a long glass windscreen, fitted with two Kent clear-view screens to ensure constant vision. Older or smaller ships, though, had more exposed bridge positions, that were less comfortable to use for long periods. The RN moved away from open bridges in the post-war period. The increased spread and effectiveness of radar (and to a lesser extent sonar) meant that naked-eye visibility was much less important. Meanwhile, the threat of nuclear weapons led to a desire to keep the crew inside, away from fallout."

I thought it might be something like this, but when you look at the RN DDs in the game they don't have these features. At least not nearly to that extent. You really mostly see them in this form on the RN light and heavy cruisers, and also in a smaller, simpler version on the EU DDs. Then again, they could very well be wind deflectors, their positions are just sometimes a bit odd for that imho.

Thanks though for the quick response and quite interesting link!

[SaiIor_Moon]

Quote

weird detail, but this has been bugging me far too long...

SLIGHTLY off-topic, but honestly, you know what MY pet peeve is, in terms of weird details? How the Tech tree USN ships ( like North Carolina, Iowa and Montana) DON'T have their darn registry numbers on the hull!!! Same goes for some USN cruisers, destroyers and carriers too. It's SO annoying! Even Georgia of Florida randomly don't have a registry number on their hulls. At least Ohio gets one, thank god for that! Kansas, Minnesota, and Vermont also don't get one either. Although THOSE ships might be kinda hard to number, true.

[desmo_2]

Ribbing.  For her pleasure, not yours.

[Helstrem]

47 minutes ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

SLIGHTLY off-topic, but honestly, you know what MY pet peeve is, in terms of weird details? How the Tech tree USN ships ( like North Carolina, Iowa and Montana) DON'T have their darn registry numbers on the hull!!! Same goes for some USN cruisers, destroyers and carriers too. It's SO annoying! Even Georgia of Florida randomly don't have a registry number on their hulls. At least Ohio gets one, thank god for that! Kansas, Minnesota, and Vermont also don't get one either. Although THOSE ships might be kinda hard to number, true.

Tech tree ships are named after the class lead, or imagined class lead in the case of paper or fantasy ships, and are generic representations of that class, hence the lack of identifying markings.  Premiums are specific ships and in those cases the identifying markings should be there, though as you mentioned it might be hard to do that for fictional ships like Florida or Georgia.

As an example, when Nelson was slated to be the Tier VII tech tree BB for the Royal Navy she did not have her name on her.  Only after becoming a premium was "Nelson" added to the ship's artwork.

[brewakeg]

2 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

SLIGHTLY off-topic, but honestly, you know what MY pet peeve is, in terms of weird details? How the Tech tree USN ships ( like North Carolina, Iowa and Montana) DON'T have their darn registry numbers on the hull!!! Same goes for some USN cruisers, destroyers and carriers too. It's SO annoying! Even Georgia of Florida randomly don't have a registry number on their hulls. At least Ohio gets one, thank god for that! Kansas, Minnesota, and Vermont also don't get one either. Although THOSE ships might be kinda hard to number, true.

My ship has "JENNY IV" on the hull (transom).     

The captain is beginning to suspect Seaman Gump has something to do with it......

[Nevermore135]

3 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

SLIGHTLY off-topic, but honestly, you know what MY pet peeve is, in terms of weird details? How the Tech tree USN ships ( like North Carolina, Iowa and Montana) DON'T have their darn registry numbers on the hull!!! Same goes for some USN cruisers, destroyers and carriers too. It's SO annoying! Even Georgia of Florida randomly don't have a registry number on their hulls. At least Ohio gets one, thank god for that! Kansas, Minnesota, and Vermont also don't get one either. Although THOSE ships might be kinda hard to number, true.

GA, FL, OH, KS, and VT never existed, so there are no historical registry numbers to give them. For ships like KS (ignoring that she is a tech-tree ship), which is based on the 1920 South Dakota design, what number would be given? She could be given one of the numbers assigned to the partially-built ships (49-54), but none of those ships were named Kansas (the names were actually all reused for later battleships, with only Montana not being built), nor is she an accurate depiction of the actual design (one big difference being she has the wrong main battery guns).

For the premiums (which commonly do have names/registry numbers, as mentioned above): FL could be given one of the previously mentioned designations from the cancelled ships that preceded NC (BB-55), but what about GA? Her design should be placed between the North Carolina and Iowa classes, but there are no numbers available. It should be noted that these two ships do, however, have their names on their sterns, so it seems WG simply didn’t want to misuse a hull number historically assigned to a radically different ship or one that didn’t make any sense. This isn’t an issue with OH: WG gave her the BB-68 designation assigned to the Montana-class USS Ohio, which was ordered but never laid down (i.e never physically existed), and considering that Ohio in game is a Montana hull, I can understand why WG decided it was appropriate to do so.

2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Tech tree ships are named after the class lead, or imagined class lead in the case of paper or fantasy ships, and are generic representations of that class, hence the lack of identifying markings.  Premiums are specific ships and in those cases the identifying markings should be there, though as you mentioned it might be hard to do that for fictional ships like Florida or Georgia.

As an example, when Nelson was slated to be the Tier VII tech tree BB for the Royal Navy she did not have her name on her.  Only after becoming a premium was "Nelson" added to the ship's artwork.

Yes, you have some ships that are clearly modeled after later ships in the series (Kongo is very clearly actually based on Hiei, which was the only ship of the class to receive the “proto-Yamato” superstructure when she was reactivated and subsequently rebuilt following Japan’s withdrawal from the naval treaties of the era) as well as some that have combinations of features that were never featured on the same hull. IIRC, I remember reading somewhere on this forum quite some time ago that Iowa in game combines several unique superstructure features from herself and her sisters. There are exceptions, but in most cases (or at least earlier in the game’s life) most premium ships are pretty accurately modeled after specific ships, assuming they actually existed, of course.

There’s also the case of Moskva getting her name added to her hull a month or two after she became a premium ship.

[SaiIor_Moon]

4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Tech tree ships are named after the class lead, or imagined class lead in the case of paper or fantasy ships, and are generic representations of that class, hence the lack of identifying markings.  Premiums are specific ships and in those cases the identifying markings should be there, though as you mentioned it might be hard to do that for fictional ships like Florida or Georgia.

As an example, when Nelson was slated to be the Tier VII tech tree BB for the Royal Navy she did not have her name on her.  Only after becoming a premium was "Nelson" added to the ship's artwork.

Yeah, yeah, I know they're just generic representations of that ship class, and therefore can't have numbers....it STILL bugs me though a bit...I'd actually rather it if they were just named class ships, like tier 9 Iowa IS the Iowa. Thankfully, for non-USN battleships, it makes little difference, for like Bismarck, Yamato or ships like that. It's just my preference though, and it's really quite a small thing, not even an issue really.

[SaiIor_Moon]

1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

GA, FL, OH, KS, and VT never existed, so there are no historical registry numbers to give them. For ships like KS (ignoring that she is a tech-tree ship), which is based on the 1920 South Dakota design, what number would be given? She could be given one of the numbers assigned to the partially-built ships (49-54), but none of those ships were named Kansas (the names were actually all reused for later battleships, with only Montana not being built), nor is she an accurate depiction of the actual design (one big difference being she has the wrong main battery guns).

For the premiums (which commonly do have names/registry numbers, as mentioned above): FL could be given one of the previously mentioned designations from the cancelled ships that preceded NC (BB-55), but what about GA? Her design should be placed between the North Carolina and Iowa classes, but there are no numbers available. It should be noted that these two ships do, however, have their names on their sterns, so it seems WG simply didn’t want to misuse a hull number historically assigned to a radically different ship or one that didn’t make any sense. This isn’t an issue with OH: WG gave her the BB-68 designation assigned to the Montana-class USS Ohio, which was ordered but never laid down (i.e never physically existed), and considering that Ohio in game is a Montana hull, I can understand why WG decided it was appropriate to do so.

Yeah, I get all that, especially since there are cancelled ships taking up those numbers and Ohio is lucky because it was built AFTER BB-64, so it gets a number, which I'm thankful for. I just mean for the ships in the tech tree that ARE known, that they should have their numbers (61 for Iowa, for instance). However, I also understand that these ships are just "generic representations" of their respective ship classes, hence no number. It still bugs me a little though XD

[wooserloop]

  Flower planters.  You have to select what you want to grow though

[Tom_Greg]

I tell you what bugs me, the opening sequence when the QE class BB gets blown up by a hit to the magazine where the projectiles are laying neatly in boxes like giant hunting rounds instead of standing upright on the projectile flats inside the turrets. 

[Lord_Slayer]

13 hours ago, Tom_Greg said:

I tell you what bugs me, the opening sequence when the QE class BB gets blown up by a hit to the magazine where the projectiles are laying neatly in boxes like giant hunting rounds instead of standing upright on the projectile flats inside the turrets. 

why would it bug you?

 

Not all Navy's stored their ammo the same way.

 

 

 

USS Texas stored her shells nose down:

[Tom_Greg]

10 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

why would it bug you?

 

Not all Navy's stored their ammo the same way.

 

Let me know when you find them laying in giant wooden crates in the magazine.