Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Ainene

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Ainene

    What we know about Ships: Updated 05/04/2017

    :offtop: Most factors mentioned, aside from hull rigidness, lead to solution error, not salvo dispersion. Dispersion itself is mainly gun/mounting-specific characteristic(some specific components, delay coils for example, aside). There is special heating charge for this.
  2. Ainene

    German Destroyers

    Strictly speaking, only 3 classes had 15cm guns as their intended load out: -Großzerstörer 1916(WW1), with 4 standart 15cm/45 WW1 cruiser guns(Karlsruhe) -Zerstörer 1936A, with 4(initially) or 5 specially designed for light ship armament 15cm guns. -Zerstörer 1936A(mob) - same. Several projects of late 30ies had them too(ones intended to operate essentially as long range scout cruisers in Atlantic), but they were hardly destroyers(and their ultimate development led to spahkreuzer). German DDs themselves, though, reverted at first to 12.7 SK C/34 on 1936B series(3 built), and to 12.8 fully DP guns with sentimetric radar-based DP FCS on later series(1936C and 1944 type zerstörers were actually laid down), more or less comparable to Gearing class.
  3. Ainene

    0.5.1. Patch Notes

    It does. Mk 15 torpedoes use medium range setting from now on.
  4. Ainene

    Hype please?

    Tapering down armor is standart solution for all nations, water shields at normal conditions lower edge more or less. And with some bad luck - shell can just pass below entire belt, it is very possible with low cruiser belts. Zara is better example in this case, actually, her beot isn't only thick but also relatively high. Yes, underwater hit is as deadly for Zara as for almost any cruiser(Japanese ones are the only exception to this rule, and even their armoured bulkhead aren't up to the task of stopping 8" shell completely), but it's very hard to solve in this displacement. It's worth mentioning how few heavy cruisers got underwater protection at all. Finally, their artillery wasn't as abysmall as you give it. Not more than US cruisers up to Wichita, which had very simillar problems.(and some other, like Myokos, which required almost decade of work to get their tight salvos)
  5. Ainene

    Hype please?

    in realistic combat situations, though, even ships on parallel cources rarely stand precisely opposite to each other, thus ship with "borderline" armor value isn't exactly likely to be penetrated through it's belt. Also, for Italians performance of their armor against us superheavy 8"(which they had never even a chance to meet) or German apc mattered little. And against French and British apc their protection worked, but not the other way(single Algerie was exception, and not as much as many tend to believe: packing all necessary stuff in honest displacement took it's toll).
  6. Ainene

    Higher Tir DDs brainstorm post

    They are.
  7. Ainene

    Fan made Italian tech tree

    Nearly model American "analysis", made not to compare but to adjust facts to desirable truth. Basic design was G3, but nevertheless.
  8. Ainene

    H.M.S. Hood

    Well, the same way you can say US frigates failed to bring down ROyal Navy in the War of 1812. By 1916 - victory of HSF was no longer possible, wonders excepted. Obviously, you can propose better option than one chosen. Only request - no after-knowledge, conditions: year 1916(chances of victory in general action no longer present), collapse of Russian Empire isn't expected, if something won't fall out by summer 1917 - you lost. IRL Russian empire started desintegrating 'spring 1917, so if germans were to have some foreseers - they could attempt doing nothing. But that is, again, afterknowledge. It remained being fleet in being whenever it was retained as combat-capable force, maintaining certain sphere where British ASW sloops&drifters couldn't operate - because they could be raided whenever germans liked, and they could be raided by anything up to capital ship size. I.e. basically - asw screen became impossible. Yes, but overall by summer 1918 it was clear military loss: last chance(units freed from the east) was expended with failure of spring offensive, and now - Germany was as depleted as France&Britain, counting deployable resources(it's worth remembering what Germany had several dozens of divisions more, still working to occupy east after Russian collapse; but these couldn't be used if germans still expected to use their victory here, and anyway they weren't enough) Problem was simple: US weren't, and by armstice German army in the west essentially collapsed. Yes, it finished war on enemy soil, but in other case it was matter of weeks, perhaps - months. And US could sustain years. =) .
  9. Ainene

    H.M.S. Hood

    Failure of U-boat arm is it's own failure: when Surface fleet task was changed to support of U-offensive - it was maintained till the end. Also, Antanta's abiliy to win against subs isn't really connected with successes of battlefleet: germans couldn't sortie with fleet far enough in any case. Germany wasn't forced to negotiations by blockade. It was, early on(1) and late in the war(2). Early on - impossible, because of german ability to back coastal mine/torpedo threat with battlefleet. Light forces have problems with combat sustainability, but they definetely could be backed in this case - and this'd be a fight on clear german terms. Late on - when there was quite workable idea, based on: 1. "inshore battlefleet" - force of older(12") battleships, bulged as much as possible(much like monitors were), to let them operate near enemy coast(bulges in this case are win-win solution, allow operation on shallow waters and counter underwater threat). This was required to have enough battleships to stand it's own against HSF w/o main fleet(2), or at least to hold off. Simply because germans were to choose time of engagement, much like it was in close blockade of Napoleonic wars against French. These were meant to be fulcrum for lighter forces, establishing blockade itself. Again, much like in Napoleonics. 2. "battlefleet" - more modern battleships, maintaining clear superiority over germans. 13,5 and 15" vessels(may be with 14" american ones, don't remember actually). 3. Naval aviation: "wounderwaffe" of Royal navy, carriers with torpedo carrying planes, able to partially neutralise HSF even on it's protected anchorages. As you can see - it was expected to be workable(and no reasons to not actually be, unlike pre-drednoughts of Mediterranean, bulged monitors proved to be very resilent against mine/explosive boat threat off Flanders), but required crazy x2,5 margin of superiority in battleships over entire HSF: i.e. battleships w/o battlecruiser squadrons against battleships|battlecruisers of hsf. Yes, this force was eventually gathered, but it became possible even for Britain only with american help.
  10. Ainene

    H.M.S. Hood

    To essentially kick Great Britain from war by 1/2 as powerful fleet? It's nearly unrealistic requirement for them. Much like some people like to declare Pearl Harbor Japanese defeat, because they haven't landed. Well, requirementof something unrealistic&declaring them loosers because they haven't even tried. As direct result of fleet actions of 1916 - distant blockade became even more distant. Basically - it(i.e. fleet) established German ability to wage unrestricted submarine warfare from Helgoland, which, in turn, - later on proved to be nearly decisive. Decisive British victory(i.e. destruction of HsF as capable fighting force) in turn, - could mean close blockade in classical - Napoleonic, - sence. This was only expected to be attempted later on, when Antanta managed to gather two fleets, with each having ability to fight off HSF alone, and for one of them("inshore one") to establish close blockade, covering light forces. Especially since British lighter forces outgunned german ones. W/o HSF these extremes would be unnesessary, and Sub threat could essentially be neutralised preemptively, w/o disasters of 1917: Flanders flotilla couldn't provide enough effort by itself. I wouldn't even remember other things, like real possibility in case of destruction of HSF for IRN to simply blockade german baltic convoy system. Not threaten like in real life(with mines and/or raids by covered lighter forces), - but to simply cut them off. Don't even mention other nasty things, like availibility for IRN in this case of german coast.
  11. Ainene

    What we know about Ships: Updated 05/04/2017

    Stronger than both, actually. Probably even more so ingame, where armor coverage(for hull), citadel length with associated underwater protection and extreme ballistics(lower time on target, higher danger space) matters even more. Obviously, salvo weight will remain with Alaska/B-65, but playing out advantages of superheavy shell/average muzzle velocity combination requires considerable skill. Much more so than with 950 mps "railguns". p.s. i'd like to see them implemented too. =)
  12. Ainene

    What we know about Ships: Updated 05/04/2017

    Heavier objects retain energy better. And in this category russian 130s(imperial 130/55 mod. 1913 and communist B-13) both look very favorably. Comparing: US 5"/38: 25kg/792 Jp 12.7/50" 23/915 British old 4.7": 22,7kg/808, new(M-class) - 28,12/774. German 12,7cm" 28/830 Soviet B-13: 33,4/870 Italian 120/50: 23,15/920-950 French 130/45 - 32,1/800.(old one had even heavier shell, 33,85, but at average velocity, and old shell had bad streamlining anyways) Basically, among destroyer guns of all larger nation Soviet combination is heaviest. Two exceptions are: 1.French contre-torpilleur 138,6(but these are halfway to cruisers; regular torpilleurs used 130mm ordnance) 2.German 15 cm/45 TBts: clearly ahead, but at well known cost.(Russian literature claims what 130 was handy enough even on lively destroyers with opened shields, even if only barely).
  13. Ainene

    What we know about Ships: Updated 05/04/2017

    mr3awsome, on 27 June 2015 - 08:09 PM, said: Top speed will be 38, 42 was her trial speed, Her trial speed was 43,558 knots(@3422 tons, 6 hour full power trials) and 44,1 at contract displacement(3216). After all, her designed speed was 42,5 knots, and it was easily achievable(machinery reached 125'000 shp w/o forcing). And managed to show it in her short wartime career-for example, in her last 180-mile dashes To Sevastopo) she reached average speeds of 40kn(rapidly killing own machinery in process,but german planes proven to be deadlier anyways). Much heavier shell+better external ballistics(more muzzle velocity, better shell shape&simply more weight - initial advantage in shell speed only widen with time).