|
Vengarr posted:What was the gift alpha ship anyway? The references I can find to "Iwaki" all point to the B-64 design. B64 Type Heavy Cruiser (Japan) Displacement: 32,000 tonnes, 34,800 tonnes deep load Dimensions: 787ft 5in pp, 802ft 6in oa long, 89ft 3in wide Machinery: 4 shaft single reduction geared turbines, 8 boilers, probably around 160,000 shp = 33 knots Armour: Belt 7.5in, bulkheads, decks 5in, Armament: 9 12.2/50 (3x3), 16 3.9in/65 AA, 12 25mm AA, 8 13.2mm AA, 8 24 inch torpedo tubes Complement: Unknown Design was started in 1939 and test carried out on the 12.2 in gun. The design was completed in 1941, but as more intelligence was learned about the USS Alaska class it was proposed to change their armament to 14.2in guns. The design was approved for construction in 1942, but no ship was ordered or laid down due to other priorities in the war.
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
James Garfield posted:Iwaki is some kind of intermediate between the Tenryu and Kuma classes. It apparently has an extra gun over Tenryu. I imagine wargaming made up the name. Trying to guess what paper ships are can be hard. The World of Warships forum was useless, the signal/noise ratio is off the charts. It makes you appreciate this forum for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
God I'd expect a coordinated division of destroyers can unleash an absolute poo poo storm of torpedoes. Finally the IJN's torpedo doctrine will have its time in the sun! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
In the World of Warships the USN Bureau of Ordnance was set on fire, shelled, bulldozed and then the rubble was shelled again. On the one hand we'll never get radar-controlled gunnery but at least the torpedoes will fuse right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Four hits on the first salvo would have been absolutely legendary accuracy IRL. Ships were considered incredibly accurate if they could straddle on the first salvo, let alone hit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Like the Iowa and NJ straddling a destroyer first salvo at 20 mi? Yeah, the Mk. 8 Rangekeeper in the Iowa class was an incredible piece of technology. Couple it with fire control radar and you get results like that. Here's a comparison between the Mk. 8 and the systems installed on contemporary IJN ships. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-086.htm
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
YellerBill posted:Boats are weird and have more responsive controls at higher speeds. I don't know the best speed for making turns but generally I go into turns at full speed or 3/4 speed. These ships don't slide through the water nearly as much as real ones do, but generally the more water flow over the rudder the more turning force you can generate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
The maps feel ridiculously cramped.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Nordick posted:It's early century and WW 1 era stuff till about tier 3 and mostly inter-war stuff for a few tiers after that. The South Carolina class is going to be the Tier 3 USN BB.   They've got that same style of prewar "floating castle" swag. USN BBs are gonna be sloooow though. The South Carolina only does 18.5 knots and you're stuck at a standard speed of 21 knots all the way to tier 7. Then the North Carolina get up to 27 knts and the Iowa is  Montana drops back to ~28 knots.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:So a lot of silly alpha testers are apparently mad that the game isn't WW2 boats simulator with combat ranges of 30Km+ how the hell would that be any fun. From what I understand the armor and damage model was more complex in the past builds. There also used to be shallows on the maps where only destroyers could go.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
I had some good games tonight with two friends running CLs and BBs in a division. At one point I was fighting two Kongos in my Kongo so I sheered in towards the leader and rammed him with a sliver of health left and on fire.  We both blew up and it was awesome. For my next trick I beat the hell out of a Fuso at 20km and managed an 8 hit salvo. Then I got forcefed torps by 4 squadrons of bombers. Having a game end by cap or timer when you're in the middle of a fight is really discouraging. Its a bad vibe when the game ends with 1 second left on the reload that is totally gonna blow up the enemy BB you've been fighting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Without having driven it, I think the major problem is that the Kongo, Fuso and Nagato are all fundamentally similar ships built in the Dreadnought era, who received rebuilds in the 20s and 30s that modernised them but didn't totally overcome their age. Excepting a couple of 30s drawings, Japanese battleships essentially go from Dreadnoughts to For some reason Wargaming decided not to include the Ise class, Tosa class or the designed but unbuilt Kii class. They'd help stretch the tech tree, but they were still armed with terrible low-angle secondaries and burdened with too many turrets due to the apparent inability of the IJN to design a triple turret until the Yamato class. The Myogi needs to be cut from the tech tree- its only got a 6 gun broadside and its tier 4 counterpart on the proposed US tree, USS Arkansas, has 12.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:50
|
|
Yamato
|
NTRabbit posted:Starblazers? When I watched it the translation was "How things could have been if the honourable side had won World War 2" Starblazers was the recut made for US TV. Yamato became Argo, and the nationalism was cut out. The original was nationalistic as hell though. The recent remake, Yamato 2199, is rad as hell though.   
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
The wake being left by that BB looks incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
SaltLick posted:It's a shame WW2 boats isn't that sweet spot of technology and dueling like tanks and planes are. Massive battleships that plug in numbers in computers and fire away towards a target they can barely see is pretty boring. There's nothing exciting and personal about it. I think the period for quick exciting engagements like that that would end at the 18th century with ships broadsiding each other. There were plenty of close range cruiser and destroyer knife-fights in the Pacific, particularly in the Solomons. For battleships to be engaged in surface combat was actually extremely rare, they spent most of the war as AAA escorts or on shore bombardment duties.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Do not brawl with Atlantas. That is all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
3 Kongos in a division steaming in line ahead and focusing fire is a force to be reckoned with. I think battleships have the greatest potential for carrying when organized and maneuvered well. CruRons and DesRons can do some damage as well, but nothing dictates the flow of battle like the BatRon. One match we did a close range driveby on a Langley to port and sank it with secondaries while engaging a Myogi to starboard with all 3 ships' main batteries. Secondaries are all sky cancer deserves. Seriously though, against 3 well handled battleship operating together every single CV we ran into either flubbed their attack hilariously or managed maybe one mildly damaging torpedo hit in exchange for many aircraft shot down. All you have to do is turn into them and they really can't do poo poo to you. Dive bombers might as well not even bother taking off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
The worst posters are the Bismarck-obsessed Kriegsaboos who don't understand that an 8 x 15" armament and archaic armor scheme does not a world-beating battleship make.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Zaodai posted:That would depend entirely on what tier it is placed at. If it was a premium sitting at tier 3 with the Kawachi or something, it'd do just fine, right? From what I've seen its gonna be a tier 8 and be a contemporary of Colorado/North Carolina and Nagato/Amagi, which is reasonable. Bismarck wasn't a bad battleship, all things considered, but it wasn't an invincible Krupp Steel hyper-dreadnought like the public at large seems to think. It'll likely have fragile turrets because its turret and barbette armor was hilariously thin, as well as its deck protection. It'll also have fewer/smaller caliber guns than everything else at that tier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Well, Warspite does hold the record for the longest-range main battery hit in history (~23km), so its kind of wacky that its outranged by pretty much every other BB at its tier. Edit: LMAO Wargaming typoed the belt armor values, its only 15mm and can be penned by DDs. Polikarpov fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Direct quote from the devs says they're basing max range on historical director height and width, which means the Japanese with their pagoda masts and focus on optics are probably going to have the longest ranged BBs in the game. Radar fire control is being ignored because its apparently "game breaking". 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Do you have the actual site/blog where they said? It'd be nice to see exactly what they said, though this is exactly the type of stupidity the devs would do. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/26229-hms-warspite-armor/page__st__40__pid__721222#entry721222  Also http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/26229-hms-warspite-armor/page__st__80__pid__722778#entry722778  Also apparently Radar isn't totally out yet, they just have no idea how to implement it yet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Speed settings for torps would be pretty cool. Long lances did most of their work by being hellish fast at close range, not super long range with decent speed. (I think they're actually giving fastest speed and longest range from the settings. It didn't help that if you ambushed (or were ambushed by) IJN destroyers at close range their standard response was to  ripple-fire their entire payload in a massive shoal of torpedoey death.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
FlyingCowOfDoom posted:Oh my god their historical military adviser can not handle the camera. I'm sure he is bright and knows his stuff but they should not have put him up there at all. Listening to him try and explain turbo-electric propulsion or the all-or-nothing armor concept was painful
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
 Really sick of allied BBs spending the whole match taking a blueline pleasure cruise.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
jownzy posted:I'm still having a hard time understanding what the incentive is to buy a premium ship. Do they plan on greatly upping the free exp you earn with it? Commanders don't need any re-training to use them. So you can stick your BB commander into an Atlanta or Sims and train him up that way. The convertable XP is just a bonus. They also make more credits than other ships, so they're a good way to fund new purchases or operational costs of high-tier ships.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:Or because the cost of one JDAM is much greater than I think you are aware of. And a fire base, even a floating relic, is always there ready to shoot. For close air support, you need to have an airplane near by. I definitely want to call down a shell with a couple hundreds of meters CEP and a 2 kilometer danger close radius, then! If you look at the Vietnam action reports of the New Jersey 16" was almost never used for close support of troops in contact- it was reserved for strategic targets like bunkers and suspected enemy positions. Troops in contact were overwhelmingly supported by the 5"/38 "Peashooters" that don't get BB advocates hard at all.  Anyway new hotness for NGFS is the subcaliber Hypervelocity Shell- it uses a sabot to fit in all kinds of guns, including the future railgun. Its also got a datalink and can be steered onto targets by other assets, which is pretty cool. (The navy thinks they can even shoot down aircraft with them by steering it via datalink and an Aegis combat system) There's also the small issue that a single BB costs as much to operate as 3.5 Burke class DDs.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Hagop posted:Wait is the Navy really trying to develop rail guns to replace naval artillery?. A weapon system that is based on the on the principal of moving a small mass really really fast seem like it would not do indirect very well. A railgun is just an accelerator. With a ferrous sabot and subcaliber projectile you can shoot pretty much anything you please out of it. 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:The 155mm AGS is going on the Zumwalts now, the railgun is slated to replace it at some point in the future, I think The cool thing is that all 4 of those rounds use the same projectile, the only "gun unique" part is the sabot.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:Why would anyone switch torps to aa guns in Omaha? Doesn't seem to be too intelligent since AA doesn't feel that useful nowdays. The firing arc of the remaining launchers does improve quite a bit.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Today I hosed up, and what's worse is it got recorded. http://www.twitch.tv/dathly/c/6771835?t=03s I'm in the New Mexico.  I had no idea that Izumo was even there.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Tanks ammo is in theory derived from how many rounds the tanks actually could carry. If the do the same in WoT, there is really no point in limited ammo at all, at least for the big guns. Most US cruiser turrets were designed to have ~150-200 rounds per gun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Yeah there isn't exactly a shortage of real USN DD classes so it's just wargaming being wargaming.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:I don't really know, so just asking. Magnetic detonators were notoriously unreliable, and mechanical detonators could be crushed or would not operate if they didn't strike the hull squarely, especially on US torpedoes in the early years of the war. This is what the warhead of a US Mk. 16 torpedo looked like.  And the actual exploder mechanism  quote:Upon launching of the torpedo the impeller of the exploder begins to rotate. The rotation of the impeller drives a gear train which rotates the delay-device worm wheel and the arming gear. The delay device renders the generator inoperative by grounding its field circuit until the delay wheel has made nearly a complete revolution, at which time the wheel stops, breaking the ground, thus activating the field circuit and allowing the generator to build up operating voltages. In the meantime the rotation of the arming gear has run the detonator up out of the safety chamber into the booster cavity (firing position). The generator charges the large condenser, mounted on the firing-mechanism base plate, which supplies the electrical energy necessary for firing the electrical detonator. An oblique impact might not generate enough force to close the detonating circuit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
Aesis posted:The moment when I realized Arkansas had 0 AA I'm not sure what is worse- having literally no AA or having low tier "5 guys with a surplus Maxim gun and harsh language" for AA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
If anyone's interested in IRL naval gunnery - how the ships practiced, what their results were like, what dispersion patterns actually looked like, etc - this link is a pro-click. http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:This is probably the best place to ask this question, why is there so much rigging on these ships? Even the Arleigh Burke-class modern destroyers (yes, I did just watch tonight's episode of The Last Ship, why do you ask?) have quite a bit of rigging. Clearly they're not strapping sails to these floating metal beasts. Is it some kind of stabilization thing? It's probably a really obvious answer and I'll feel dumb afterwards, but it's been bugging me. Its either standing rigging for supporting the mainmast or just hoists for signal flags.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
Insert name here posted:I've got this guys, I'v- gently caress the Atlantas have cloaking devices now
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 09:45
|
|
