Jump to content

csatahajos

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [NKH]

5 Followers

About csatahajos

  • Rank
    Neverwere Warships
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/forum/86-warship-projects/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Budapest
  • Interests
    Warships of course :) (and US Steam locomotives and PC hardware and Formula 1...)

WG

  • Position
    ---

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Those are the original 16"/50 Mark 7 triples, which were alternatively replaced with the twin 18"/47 Mark As. Since originally Iowa was indended to be the T10 BB of the first line they needed something at T9, and it just made sense to put in the stretched SoDak prelim. version of BB-61. But as we know now Iowa was not strong enough for T10 and they had a free model laying around for years. With the recent find of turret and gun drawings for the 18" weapon it just made sense to reuse this model now, as this weapon was considered for the 45.000 ton battleship design effort. The picture is from the alpha phase as I wrote above, when all US ships had the default camo paint of Ms 22, that pretty much gives it away.
  2. The gun is so real that it still exists, sitting around in Dahlgren , though it's not on public display (yet). More on this and the "Georgia" on my blog, coming soon ;) ( https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/ ) Actually I've had a look at the 16" variant back in Alpha testing, she was already called Georgia back then (see last pic). So despite all criticism WG nicely did their homework on this one. In fact even the twin turrets are correct shape and size as their drawings surfaced just recently. Hint: there is also a triple turret so expect it to be used on the 2nd USN BB line ;)
  3. It was the other way around..... Portland for sure suffered a torpedo hit and got heavy damage though but it was Portland who finished off the damaged Yudachi not the other way. It is not clear which ship's torp hit the US CA. USS Portland CA-33 survived the war, and even got rebuilt after her battle damage. Edit: Inazuma or Ikazuchi were the likely source of the torp damaging Portland, just looked it up.
  4. It is as historically accurate camo as your suggestion, was intended to be used but she was in the end painted in Ms 21 and Ms 22 by the time what the 3D model depicts (after her "big" refit). Ms 21 and 22 would be pretty dull (especially Ms 21), so I can see why they opted for this. The Ms 12 Mod camo that your google search brought up was replaced by late 1942 and would be equally incorrect for the model. http://www.usndazzle.com/design.php?category=3&class=1&design_num=14D&designed_for_type=CA&designed_for_num=45 Please do your research properly and not just a "quick google search" before you start criticizing.
  5. csatahajos

    CV Rework Discussion

    I don't post too often but I think this CV rework stuff is worthy to offer opinion on it. First of all I appreciate the effort and time put into this and the acceptance from Lesta that the CV gemaplay was sub-par compared to the others. However I feel that in the dumbing down process you got too far - a bit reminds me of the good old ALPHA days with the BBs having super elevated gun cameras with aiming circles on the map (Yes I was here already, making the carrier argument back then with KGB if anyone remembers him...). We have got a World of Warplanes-mini or plugin instead of a true carrier gameplay. By the same token we could have land-based air and forget the carriers completely ,as the vessel itself has got zero importance left. I think the dev. team should really study real carrier battles and focus on the CARRIER instead of a half-baked aircraft game. While for other ship types, actual ship merits are treated importantly, like gun caliber, Rof, turning rate, torps etc etc, carrier traits were mostly ignored and now they are completely removed! Which is a big big mistake IMHO and besides making the beautiful 3D in game models almost superfluous I don't feel like a carrier commander, while I have this feeling in the other classes. There are so many many factors in a carrier design that could be taken into account to spice up the game, like number elevators, arrangement, open or closed hanger, sortie cycle, spotting of aircraft on deck, taking on one squadron or putting up one in the air etc. choosing between arming your early gen planes with torps or bombs depending on the target. It would give a lot more tactical feel I agree, but would at least be a ship vs ship combat not a plane vs ship only as currently planned. So what I suggest is to make the game a bit between an RTS and what you suggest now, so that the carrier element matters a lot more (I have a few more exact ideas on this if needed). Funnily Sub_Octavian commented in the video that the devs don't want to make the ship itself a meaningless plane-truck, but in effect this is what transpires now and this is disappointing. What you plan would be a nice replacement for the manual drop and the rocket equipped attack planes are a good idea as well. However a lot more needs to be added on the carrier side and also as others suggested make the guns on the CVs actually manually usable! There is so-so much potential in there...
  6. Nice to see that in this very topic there are at least 3 Hungarians..so that is why we need the Szent István. BTW as the other Ákos described above it was a very nice feat from the Hungarian industrial base to produce something as complicated and cutting edge as a dreadnought in that ere. It was late and had some issues by the design (not the builders fault) but it was mostly ours. In fact the 1867 Agreement between A-H mandated that Hungary pay 1/3 of military spending. Up to the Viribus class every 3rd capital ship bore a Hungarian name (Budapest, Árpád, Zrínyi etc.) but they were build by Stabilimento Tecnico (which was Austrian firm despite the Italian name). With the Szent István it was about to change and even the follow on "Ersatz Monarch" class' 3rd or 4th ship would have been built by the same yard (Ganz-Danubius) and main hull frame and parts plus smaller weapons would have been supplied to the other 3 ships by Hungarian firms as well. More on this on my blog: https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/austro-hungarian-capital-ship-genesis/
  7. Ahh I did not know about the 15" B hull....any source for that? (The leaks I have seen onlym entioned the 14" historical variant. I'm with you on this though, the 14" turrets were never meant to take the bigger guns. Honestly with it's awesome armor I think KGV would make a fine ship at T8 even with 14" guns, just adjust the RoF and she will do fine, just as Scharnhorst does! Also any hardcopy sources for this claim? "real life performance of the 14" Mk VII found it to be lackluster at the best of times." According to all my sources the 14"/45 Mark VII was performing very well, ballistically about equal to the 15" Mark I. It was the quad turrets that gave a lot of headaches not the guns themselves! But this is a game anyway, if such things would be taken into acount as mounting design and teething troubles a lot of ships would perform whole differently...so it is unrealistic to ask for such considerations in a game. On the Conqueror thingie: for those who still belive in the L2 theory...for lemonade's sake, look at the belt armor...all the 1921 serises capital ships had INTERNAL belts, just like Nelson. COnqueror shows external belts on all leaked pictures. Not to mention that the L2 was a single funnel ship with non alternating machinery whereas the 16E38 had alternating engine room/boiler room arrangement and two, well separated funels exactly for that reason! Also it can not be Vanguard as the 18" turrets are much much bigger than the two gun mountings for the 15"/42 Mark I. She resembles Vanguard as the latter ship was designed in paralel to Lion as a faster version and to use the stored 15" turrets. So Vanguard inherited all the tems that were included in Lion's early war redesign, and obvously any actually built Lion variants would have got those features.
  8. csatahajos

    New ship preview: Heart of Oak

    Ok give me the link for the new thread, I'll be interested in what is wrong with the line otherwise. Who said anything about the T8? T8 is most likely going to be KGV in it's real form. You can hardly have any more a real ship than KGV.... Top tier fantasy has nothing to do with WG. Once they decided to implement Yamato in the game it was clear that they had to resort to planned but never completed ships in order to compensate for Yamato. Honestly with the exception of the German T9 and T10 cruisers there is not much WG fantasy in the game yet, all other ships are based on historically sound designs and concepts, some more advanced than the other. No offense but not knowing these designs does not mean WG pulled them out of their little finger, so before you scream WG fantasy please check the facts behind them more thoroughly.
  9. csatahajos

    New ship preview: Heart of Oak

    Chipmunk, I'm with you on that they should have put in at least the B3 avariant, or even better yet, any of the recently discovered late 1944 redesigns (the biggest variant was 76,200 tons deep with 930 X 128 X 37 feet with 320.000 SHP (probably 6 screws) making 33 knots. This is something along the lines of a Montana with 9 guns (faster firing though) and better heavy AA. There was a bit smaller (and probbaly more realistic) version at 70,200 tons deep load with a 895X124X34.5 ft hull and 235k SHP at 31.5 knots. These came to light too recently, after the design of the tree had been finalized (I was working on it with the guys in St. Pete, ot better said, helping them out). Unfortunately a later decision was made to use the 16E/38 which was formerly thrown away as not protected well enough for a T10 (actually it has KGV's exact armour layout). The above mentioned designs though have all 16" gun armament, and nine barrles at that, so it seems they did not want to make a T10 Scharnhorst (which is IMHO a shame as Scharnhorst is probably one of the most fun BB to play with it's uniqque heavy armour but less heavy but very fast firing main guns). Actually KGV is shaping up to be the same but at T8 only. As for the rest of the line (even not taking my work going into it into account) I think the right choices were made ship wise. The in game stats are not down to the tech tree designers so I can not comment on that. I'd say let's give it some time in supertest then we will see how it turns out. Personally I wonder what the actual 18" gun used for uparming the 16E38 isstats - the Mark 2 gun (18"/45 that is) was designed before the WT and did not get built so a new design would have been better (also it seems the T9 Lion will also have the 16.5" option from the early 1920s as well...) Also by the same token Montana could have gotten an 18" option with the USN's Mark A 18"/47.
  10. csatahajos

    New ship preview: Heart of Oak

    Ask the dev team, not me . I'm just setting the facts correct. BTW in what respect did it come worse? It can be argued at length that the 8 X 2 18" armament is worse compared to the 12 -16" guns but in the end there are IMHO pros and cons for both. Otherwise the design was as is minus the bow, the funnel caps and the light AA, which in my book count as all huge improvements over the baseline variant.
  11. csatahajos

    New ship preview: Heart of Oak

    "In the final stage she may probably include few solutions from the K2 battlecruiser design as well, and yeah, the funnels tended to get changed in reconstructions (though usually reduced to get superstructure more compact - OTOH that meant more complicated intakes so this may be a logical step). And yes, for example the hypothetical refit would land the originally designed 6" secondaries and replace them with the 5.25" dual purpose - I mean there are plenty of examples of UK refits / redesigns to go with for the hypothetical upgrades of hypothetical design and very radical refits are nothing new either - just compare West Virginia as sunk in Pearl with West Virginia roaming the Pacific in 1944" Tuccy et all, the Tier 10 has nothing to do with L2 or K2. It is the Lion preliminary design 16E/38 from the first Lion design series, which originally mounted 4X3 16" guns. These were swapped by the design team to 18" guns. K2 and L2 had internal belt armor vs external (which is clearly to be seen on COnqueror), plus the funnels give things away as L2 and K2 were non-alternating machinery arrangament, whereas the 16E38 was. ALso from the 1942 redesign the raked sheer line was implemented on this design as well that is why the bow resembles Vanguard (plus the funnel caps and modern lattice masts). Sorry for the bad quality pic but I don'T have a scanner at hand. Source is John Roberts: The Lion class Battleship Designs 1939-1946 Part 2 in Warship Volume No V https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_0LRABluTmILXl0aFdwUFpqQmM/view?usp=sharing Please if possible correct the original description in Post No 2. Thanks Akos
  12. csatahajos

    Just a quick suggestion about what WG should do better...

    then saying this: ROFLMAO...is this guy for real?
  13. Master topic for never-were warships of the French, German and Minor navies French Navy - Marine Nationale Pre 1922 French cruiser projects Battleship Jean Bart variants German Navy - Hochseeflotte / Kriegsmarine German Carrier designs My tiny collection of KM paperships German cruiser projects in the 1920's German Light Cruiser project from 1/700 kit Minor Navies Austro-Hungarian non-capital ship Designs kuk battlecruiser designs Romanian Naval Programmes Polish ORP Błyskawica Australian Cockatoo Heavy Cruiser Design Swedish "aircraft carrier cruiser", 1946 improved Tegetthoff Class (Ersatz Monarch) Royal Danish Navy Never Were Designs Swedish Battleship from 1918 Gustav V Swedish Coastal Warship Projects Swedish Navy ship. HMS Gotland (1933) Spanish Heavy Cruiser Project 131 Spanish Heavy Cruiser Project 138 Swedish Design Destroyer 'Grad' for Poland, circa 1933. Spanish BSAC export carrier series Spanish Light Carrier Project 66 Swiss Aircraft Carrier Swedish Navy Cruiser Designs Felipe II class Battleship Spanish Light Cruiser Project 124 Spanish Littorio type Battleship Canadian Navy never-were designsAustralian Navy Never-Weres Swedish Navy ship. HMS Sverige (1915) Australian Design 1944 Light Cruiser
  14. Master topic for never-were warships of the RUssian Navies ANKER, russian BB/CV-1937 Soviet/Russian Warship project numbers Project 1080 Arsenal Ship Project 923 The True Multipurpose Destroyer Looking for information on postwar Tallin (ex-Lutzow, ex-Petropavlovsk) The Imperial Russian Torpedo Cruiser Design of 1913 Tsarist battleship studies 1914-1916 Russian Super Monitor Project Kostenko's 1936 Battleship Design
  15. Master topic for never-were warships of the RN British 14" Mark VII Guns Royal Navy N3-class battleship Concept Ice Carrier Design 866 Heavy Cruiser Design 873 Battleship The Streamlined Battleships Post WW1 Battlecruiser Designs Post WW1 Battleship Designs Battle of Jutland, last surviving ship Australian Cockatoo Heavy Cruiser
×