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

Some Perspective on the size of WoWs' Ships

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

197
[-YK-]
Beta Testers
847 posts
20,222 battles

I decided to do some theme naming with the title.

 

I found these two images online that are in the same scale, showing the comparative sizes of assorted US warships. From what I can tell, it seems that every ship on this list is either going to be in the game, or a probable candidate for being included in the game. Destroyers are gonna look small, and aircraft carriers and battleships are going to look big, from each other's point of view!

 

http://www.lonesentr...-destroyers.jpg

 

Images are from http://www.lonesentr...ilhouettes.html

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,138
Members
3,591 posts

There is a French site called Navistory.com which contains some nice overviews of all ships (and their sizes) in various navies, like these:

 

German Hochseeflotte

German Kriegsmarine

Royal Navy WW1

Royal Navy WW2

US Navy WW2

French Navy WW1

French Navy WW2

Not all navies have such a nice overview, but most ships are nicely illustrated. And even though my french is worse than rubbish (and google translate doesn't help much), it's still a nice site.

 

[EDIT] Just saw on your link that these silhouettes are from an actual navy handbook. Nice! I guess it helps when you've got to ID a ship with your Mk.1 eyeball. [/EDIT]

Edited by JeeWeeJ
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,254
[CYPHR]
Alpha Tester, Members, Beta Testers
4,358 posts
27,930 battles

Posted Image

 

 

also looking though did u see this???? iowa design with 18inch guns???

 

 

Posted Image

 

 

hey kgb is 18" guns a planned upgrade for the iowa???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,254
[CYPHR]
Alpha Tester, Members, Beta Testers
4,358 posts
27,930 battles

View PostxS_DEADLY_Sx, on 02 September 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

could post that on Q&A...

did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,902 posts
779 battles

I'm willing to bet the 18" Iowa is a design someone made for their alternate history website.  You have to be careful with ship designs, because there are a LOT of designs that look plausible, but were created by some alt-history nerd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,138
Members
3,591 posts

Had to do some digging, but i think those Iowa and Montana drawings originally come from THIS site.

There are a lot of drawings on there that look probable, but are made up by the person behind the site. In the description of that 18" Iowa you can find the code OD, or Own Design.

 

Still, i'd love to see an Iowa with 18" guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,902 posts
779 battles

View PostJeeWeeJ, on 02 September 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

Had to do some digging, but i think those Iowa and Montana drawings originally come from THIS site.
There are a lot of drawings on there that look probable, but are made up by the person behind the site. In the description of that 18" Iowa you can find the code OD, or Own Design.

Still, i'd love to see an Iowa with 18" guns...

Called it~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,340
[NDA]
Alpha Tester
6,193 posts
4,955 battles

Here's a few I got...

 

The ships are grouped by ship type so it's easy to compare against another of its class.

 

http://angelina.3guy.../WoWS/Page1.JPG

 

Light Cruisers

Nagara class, Nagara

Nagara class, Isuzu

Ooyodo

 

Destroyers

Kagero class, Yukikaze --------- Shiratsuyu Class, Yuudachi

USS Fletcher ------------------- Akizuki class, Suzutsuki

-------------------------------- Z1 Class, Georg Thiele

 

Submarines

Type III, I-8

USS Gato --------------- Otsu type, I-58

 

Carriers

Akagi

Shokaku

Shoho class, Ryuho

USS Essex

USS Casablanca

Heavy Cruisers

Deutschland

Myoko class, Ashigara

Tone

 

http://angelina.3guy.../WoWS/Page2.JPG

 

Battleships

USS Washington ----- Kongo

USS South Dakota --- Fuso

USS Missouri ------- Ise

HMS Valiant -------- Nagato

HMS Nelson --------- Yamato

HMS King George V -- USS Pennsylvania

HMS Renown --------- USS Maryland

 

http://angelina.3guy.../WoWS/Page3.JPG

 

Battleships cont.

HMS Hood

Bismarck

Scharnhorst

Bretagne

Dunkerque

Richelieu

Caracciolo class, Caio Duilio

Littorio Class, Vittorio Veneto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
506 posts
896 battles

View PostJeeWeeJ, on 02 September 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

Had to do some digging, but i think those Iowa and Montana drawings originally come from THIS site.
There are a lot of drawings on there that look probable, but are made up by the person behind the site. In the description of that 18" Iowa you can find the code OD, or Own Design.

Still, i'd love to see an Iowa with 18" guns...

It really doesn't make sense. Unless BuOrd decided at that late stage in the game to design an entirely new 18" rifle, there'd be no advantage for going from 16" to 18" and a heap of disadvantages. The superheavy 16" brought its penetration capability up to even with the 18" design, which was left over from WWI (and had actually been considered as a long 16" gun with a large liner for greater velocity but was discarded due to excessive wear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,275
Alpha Tester
5,710 posts
2,411 battles

Check out my topic on the German H class battleship i made a nice comparison there;

 

View PostCrag_r, on 30 August 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Size comparison of the Bismark, H class and a Nimitz class carrier

 

Tirpitz, Bismark class battleship; 52.600 tons 251 m long

http://www.german-na...e/t_tirpitz.gif

 

 

H-39; 62.497 tons 277.8 m long

http://www.german-na...battleshiph.gif

 

 

H-40; 65.600 tons 282.9 m long

http://www.german-na...rine/t_h40a.gif

 

 

H-41; 76.000 tons 300.4 m long

http://www.german-na...arine/t_h41.gif

 

 

H-42; 98.000 tons 305.2 m long

http://www.german-na...arine/t_h42.gif

 

 

CVN John C. Stennis, US Nimitz class carrier; 102.000 tons 332.9 m long

http://www.german-na...arine/t_cvn.gif

 

 

H-43; 120.000 tons 330.2 m long

http://www.german-na...arine/t_h43.gif

 

 

H-44; 141.500 tons 345.1 m long

http://www.german-na...arine/t_h44.gif

 

Yes these things were massive!

http://forum-na.worl..._7507#entry7507

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[ACES-]
[ACES-]
Beta Testers
3 posts
15,302 battles

I have a book that says there was an "escalator clause" in the Iowa design that had it been known that Yamato was using 18" guns, the Iowa could have been upgraded to the 18" 45cal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
506 posts
896 battles

View Postboneman, on 04 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I have a book that says there was an "escalator clause" in the Iowa design that had it been known that Yamato was using 18" guns, the Iowa could have been upgraded to the 18" 45cal.

Which book is that? It really doesn't make any sense to go from the 16"/50 with the Mark 8 shell to the 18"/45, the ballistics on the 16"50 make hitting easier, the penetration's very similar and the 16"/50 is much lighter. According to Friedman, the 18" was easily dismissed from consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
8 posts

But 18" is scarier than 16"

 

I remember reading somewhere that the penetrating power of the 16" super-heavy shell was as good as the shells from the 18.1" on the Yamato. But it could have been concieved as a way to get the potential of a 18"/50 or some such nonsense 'threaten' with. That is usually what those escalator clauses where 'if we catch you cheating, then we can do something else' - of course, if we would have actually found out about the 18.1s we would have upgraded the design to take a 'better' 18" gun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×