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

Historical/Technical question on USS Colorado

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

75
[4_0_4]
Members
334 posts
2,244 battles

So I was looking at the Colorado in my port when I noticed that the local rangefinders on her B turret didn't seem like they would clear the superstructure behind her, meaning the turret couldn't rotate 45 degrees in either direction without snapping a rangefinder off.  I thought at first this might be a modeling error, but contemporary pictures and my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships both seem to confirm that this configuration was correct.  I also can't find anything about a design flaw that prevented B turret from rotating, which means either my eye is deceiving me or there was some other solution to this problem.  Colorado isn't the only ship this seems like it would have been an issue on, Pensacola has it too, among others.  As this seems to be the place for ship historians and architects, I thought I'd see if one of you can clue me in.  I've uploaded pictures below in case what I'm talking about isn't clear.373990243_Exhibit1.thumb.jpg.62bdb4fb327cd2084f0fb88e40a37089.jpg1656928544_Exhibit2.thumb.jpg.1b17afe90f34e1c7a763e8b82f626f48.jpg 

Thanks for your help, this is probably bothering me more than it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,876 posts
7,310 battles

I suspect it is just a modelling error.  The rangefinders on the WoW model look larger than the ones on the actual ship.

Here's a rendering of the ship:

bf9fa3d5e07b6b83e78e3cfcc4722115.jpg

 

Note how the rangefinder ears are further forward and thinner than on the WoW model.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[4_0_4]
Members
334 posts
2,244 battles

Perhaps that was it, they were far enough forward on the gun to clear the turn and smaller than modeled in WoWs.  Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,133
[WPORT]
Members
20,728 posts
22,656 battles

Notice the "axis of rotation" is nearer the front of the turret face, instead of nearer the rear of the turret.
So, there's "just enough" clearance for the range-finders on the actual ship, because of how the turret moves during rotation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,555
[GWG]
Members
8,018 posts
15,874 battles

The turret pivot point is forward of where you'd think it was for those turrets.
As such, the arc is more relaxed which would allow clearance.

Colorado_Camo.jpg

Colorado_Pivot.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,555
[GWG]
Members
8,018 posts
15,874 battles

Training rooms are wonderful things...
image.thumb.png.fe4544030007e4b7ce8e4395ec087f52.png

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,361
[REVY]
Members
9,649 posts
7,316 battles
5 hours ago, rallybackmonkey said:

So I was looking at the Colorado in my port when I noticed that the local rangefinders on her B turret didn't seem like they would clear the superstructure behind her, meaning the turret couldn't rotate 45 degrees in either direction without snapping a rangefinder off.  I thought at first this might be a modeling error, but contemporary pictures and my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships both seem to confirm that this configuration was correct.  I also can't find anything about a design flaw that prevented B turret from rotating, which means either my eye is deceiving me or there was some other solution to this problem.  Colorado isn't the only ship this seems like it would have been an issue on, Pensacola has it too, among others.  As this seems to be the place for ship historians and architects, I thought I'd see if one of you can clue me in.  I've uploaded pictures below in case what I'm talking about isn't clear.373990243_Exhibit1.thumb.jpg.62bdb4fb327cd2084f0fb88e40a37089.jpg1656928544_Exhibit2.thumb.jpg.1b17afe90f34e1c7a763e8b82f626f48.jpg 

Thanks for your help, this is probably bothering me more than it should.

I have a sneaking suspicion Colorado could actually turn it's turrets.

rDAi4yI.jpg

 

Edited by Sventex
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[4_0_4]
Members
334 posts
2,244 battles
2 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I have a sneaking suspicion Colorado could actually turn it's turrets.

rDAi4yI.jpg

 

I was fairly sure it could, but that was the problem, I couldn’t square how with the in game ship model and specs I had access to.  I wasn’t sure if they had to demount them and then reattach or something equally silly.  But it turns out it is probably just a modeling issue.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,973 posts
13,731 battles
On 7/8/2021 at 7:38 PM, rallybackmonkey said:

I was fairly sure it could, but that was the problem, I couldn’t square how with the in game ship model and specs I had access to.  I wasn’t sure if they had to demount them and then reattach or something equally silly.  But it turns out it is probably just a modeling issue.

It's probably not even a modeling issue, the back plate of the turret swings in an arc around the barbette, anything attached to the turret inside this arc will clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×