Jump to content

Snowyskies

Players
  • Content Сount

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Snowyskies

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Snowyskies

    European destroyer tree

    Well that's the thing, with a pan-European tree you can ditch most of the fantasy and fill it out with real ships instead. I'm not one that can't stand paper ships. On the other hand when the option to use ships that were in fact laid down exists I do find that to the the better solution.
  2. Snowyskies

    European destroyer tree

    Do you really think whatever history they had is relevant for this game though. You aren't suggesting the e.g. Greece should have it's own tree due to its navy of triremes right? There simply isn't enough Dutch ship classes that fits within the scope of this game to create their own tree.
  3. Snowyskies

    European destroyer tree

    Finally read through them properly but I don't have much to add. To nitpick it seems the max traverse rate was actually 8,2° though, not 8° ;) After reading it all I am left wondering if the common 15 rpm figure given for these guns is achievable in practice. Yes, the technical details does say the hoist can provide that many rounds per minute (I assume that takes into account the time needed for the the loading sequence as well, at 60°). Keeping the hoist fed at that pace couldn't be easy though. Thanks once again for taking the time to do this!
  4. Snowyskies

    European destroyer tree

    Well, it's all the same to me as I've like to know more about the Swedish cruisers as well. Thanks for all your work! Those 3d cut-outs are very neat and finally a full look at the armor scheme. You also get a good look on how the all-angle loading mechanism is setup on the turrets - the higher the gun angle is the less distance it has to move.
  5. Snowyskies

    European destroyer tree

    Hm, yeah, I suppose it could be a special HE round for ship combat. This is written on the Swedish wikipedia at least: Let's do a quick comparison using NavWeap values for the US 6"/53 Mk 12 gun with AP rounds and the UK 6"/50 Mk XXIII with CPBC rounds. The Swedish gun values are multiplied by cos(angle)^(30/14) for belt penetration, sin(angle)^(30/14) for deck penetration as suggested by the ballistic table. The added ^(30/14) is especially notable with the deck penetration values as it reduces it by quite a lot. Penetration values from different sources aren't necessarily directly comparable either. Hopefully I didn't mess up somewhere... Belt penetration against KC armor (mm) Range (m) US 6"/53 Pgr m/46 5760 102 141 8230 76 105 12620 51 55 Belt penetration against NC armor (mm) Range (m) UK 6"/50 Hpgr m/30 11430 76 93 Deck penetration against KC armor (mm) Range (m) US 6"/53 Pgr m/46 15730 25 17 19020 38 30 21580 51 43 Deck penetration against NC armor (mm) Range (m) UK 6"/50 Hpgr m/30 20120 51 45 Seems fine, no? The shell does bleed speed very quickly resulting in long travels times and low belt penetration at 10 km+.
  6. Snowyskies

    European destroyer tree

    Hey, nice. Pretty dry reading in some parts but that's how it goes, overall it is very detailed as you say. Well how about that, a very different design on the new shell. Still curious that they went for a short round, maybe the Swedish navy was also hoping going for better deck penetrations by that time. I'd assumed that the stålgranat (stgr) designation was for AP rounds but that doesn't seem to be the case. According to those drawings it has a very large filler, so some kind of SAP round (nose fuzed as opposite to the base fuzed hpgr perhaps)? Not like I'm a buff on shell designs. So ~20,4 km with a 23,5 kg projectile and a 835 m/s muzzle velocity. The old 12 cm M/24 should do quite a bit worse then with a projectile that weighs only 21 kg (HE) along with the slower 800 m/s muzzle velocity. Of what I've read of it so far I can't see anything that supports the common claim that there would be a separate AA-hoist with a higher capacity for the 152 mm guns. Seems like all hoists had a 15 rounds/minute capability which, with the automatic loading at any angle, presumably would give a rate of fire of 15 rounds/minute assuming the hoists could be fed with rounds at that pace. I've yet to read all pages thoroughly so maybe I'll find more details about it later. Turret traverse and elevation is only average, nowhere close to the likes of the British 6-inch DP guns. Don't know if Wargaming cares about the real rudder shift time when balancing. The plans at the end are something new as well; 80 mm belt on a preliminary design, 9 (crossed out to 7)x15cm guns and floatplanes on the other. I'll add that the stack design that Tre Kronor eventually got looks much better (in my subjective view) than the Italian initial version.
  7. Snowyskies

    European destroyer tree

    Hi, nice to hear! Okay so the difference between the 12 cm M/24, M/24B and M/24C really does seem to mostly be changes to the mount (shield primarily) rather than the guns themselves. The M/24C having more changes to it overall than the M/24B. I'll take a closer look later but at first glance I'd guess they are 12 cm/45 rather than 12 cm/50 which you can see claims for at some sites (NavWeaps for one). Neither do they look identical to the Dutch 12 cm/50 guns on the Admiralen destroyers (http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/inventaris/gahetnascans/eadid/4.MST/inventarisnr/1851/level/file). On the other hand, 19,3 km with a light 20,3 kg round fired at 790 m/s? Those shells would have to very streamlined and the mount able to elevate to +45° to achieve such a feat. Okay, that's interesting, the values are a bit different from what's found on NavWeaps. Of course the NavWeaps entry for the gun combines the Dutch weapons and the Swedish ones and who knows if they fired the same projectiles. If we trust the NavWeaps values for the guns on Gotland then the Tre Kronor guns had pretty much the same ballistic. It's curious that the HE round (sgr M/30) and the old AP round (stgr M/39) seems to have better ballistic characteristic than the new AP round (pgr M/46) and the SAP round (hpgr M/30). I wonder why that is? As for the Belfast comparison, well, while the muzzle velocity isn't bad it's also a very light round in comparison. Not an armour scheme optimized for use in World of Warships The 20 mm upper belt isn't much use against anything. Good to finally see how the scheme on Tre Kronor was actually laid out though. Gotland surprises me as well as I recall reading that it had at least 10 mm more side armour than that. Know at which displacement they were run? I've seen claims that they did it at full load displacement which would be quite impressive. Though they were of course quite small ships in comparison to most WW2 era destroyers of the major nations. Are you sure about this one? In some of the earlier texts you've uploaded they wrote about the mounts and said that a) the triple mount was restricted to +60° and b) the twin mount was restricted to +60°, although it would be possible to modify it to achieve +70°. The plans of the Dutch cruisers as finished post-war are at least restricted to +60°. (http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/inventaris/gahetnascans/eadid/4.MST/inventarisnr/3338/level/file) The Tre Kronor class sure sounds speedy. Quite a dichotomy to the old coast defence ships and the other 30 knots or slower proposed ships.
  8. Snowyskies

    Algérie, Henri IV and Duca d'Aosta preliminary stats

    I'd take the stats with a pretty big grain of salt. As an illuminating example in the stats given you have a post-war 57 mm triaxially stabilized, radar controlled twin AA mount with the same range and only 0,625 more DPS than a manually operated 37 mm twin mount.
  9. Snowyskies

    French cruisers leaked.

    NavWeaps isn't gospel, although I will freely admit that I use it myself most of the time for weapon stats. As an example Norman Friedman claims that the guns on Dupleix fired a 54,9 kg APC rounds at 900 m/s while the highest values on NavWeaps is a 52 kg round at 770 m/s. Now Norman Friedman may certainly be wrong as well and the issue is further muddled because the NavWeaps page isn't just for a single version of the 164,7 mm gun but rather for several models. Especially the rate of fire figures is something I take with a big grain of salt. I won't claim that the 3 rpm figure is wrong but neither can I simply trust that it's correct. To add to the balance argument I'd further note that for example the St. Louis gets 7,5 rpm upgrade while NavWeaps says "about 6". Cruiser guns at tier 3 having higher rate of fire than what NavWeaps says isn't out of the ordinary. In the end I fully agree that with 3 rpm it wouldn't be balanced though, no argument there.
  10. Snowyskies

    French cruisers leaked.

    I've always assumed that has more to do with the mixed-calibre armament, where the armoured cruiser often only have 2x2 main guns with much of the firepower being compromised of lower calibre guns. The US St. Louis is after all an armoured cruiser as well, so WG can hardly claim that there would be no armoured cruisers in-game. Dupleix had more uniform setup - 4x2 164,7 mm guns - as the main armament and so would fit within the context of the game. At that speed you could argue that it never really makes it into the gameplay part of the game in the first place and therefore doesn't count! ;) But nah, you're right. I didn't take premiums into consideration.
  11. Snowyskies

    French cruisers leaked.

    That doesn't jive with my understanding of it. The C5 designs were a pre-war project for a more-or-less treaty compliant heavy cruiser to follow up Algerié. What WG is calling Charles Martel ought to be one of these C5 designs, at least it looks like it. Saint Louis on the other hand is a wartime design that was to be ~4000 ton heavier than the C5, or in other words something similar to the US Baltimore. So... Tier 8: C5A3 (maybe), paper Tier 9: Saint Louis, paper Tier 10: ? The tier 1 was a class made for colonial service - a sloop, aviso, gunboat or whatever you'd like to call it. Basically something similar to the ingame US Erie except they only have 3x1 138,6 mm guns and were, as far as I know, unarmoured. The tier 2 is a pre-turn of the century cruiser (laid down 1897) and is a single ship class - the last French protected cruiser. It would be the slowest cruiser an tier 2 thus far (23 knots maybe?). To compensate it does have 8x1 165,7 mm which would be the largest of the cruisers, although rate of fire is a big question mark. Tier 3 is a question mark for me as well. My best guess is that it's a preliminary version of Duguay Trouin from 1920, the main difference is some reduction in speed due to a less powerful power plant. The only other light cruiser design that I know of from that era is a 4x2 138,6 mm gun design, but those turrets on the tier 3 sure looks like that turrets on Duguay Trouin which would mean they are 155 mm guns. Overall I'm surprised by the tier 7 Algerié and a bit disappointed that we don't get a tier 3 armoured cruiser in the form of Dupleix.
  12. If you think it's unfair that Montana is included then there are a lot of other ships that should be removed from the list as well. As Daemon93 mentioned the high tiers (9, 10) will be quite lacking in completed ships anyway, except for destroyers. That's more of a design "flaw" by WG than anything else. Nobody really built a battleship directly comparable to the tier 10 Yamato or the tier 9 Iowa. Neither did anyone build a gun-cruiser directly comparable to Des Moines.
  13. Snowyskies

    Want, no wait. Need De Ruyter as a premium now WG!

    I'm no expert research that have poured hours into this, I just go by what's at http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Special_battlecruiser.htm (check table 9 and the drawings below it). However when you say that's even more of a reason to class it as a cruiser I'd point your attention to the tier 6 battleship Dunkerque with its inclined 225 mm belt, 40 mm slope and 40 m torpedo belt. That sounds eerily similar to Design 1047's inclined 225 mm belt, 30 mm slope and 40 mm torpedo belt, doesn't it? Sounds like a perfect fit for a battleship in this game then to me! ;) Yeah, I doubt they had been ordered as the design wasn't fully finalized yet. Nope. Who knows what gimmicks WG wants to use anyway.
  14. Snowyskies

    Fan made Italian tech tree

    Only found two inconsequential naming mistakes. Shimakaze as tier 10 IJN ship name, you have it as Yugumo. Tier 5 VMF is Gnevny, you have it written as Grevny. Actually as far as the tier 2 Poerio is concerned I'm unsure if there is an error or not. Didn't Pepe have 1 gun forward, 2 to the right, 2 to the left and 1 aft? That would give it a 4 gun broadside and not 3 as you have it at the moment. Well Poerio seems to have had 2 foward, 1 right, 1 left and 1 aft but then that's only 5 guns total instead of 6 as you've listed. It's difficult to find good pictures where you can make out the layout for sure. I had a look at the ones at http://vidamaritima.com/2016/04/consideraciones-tecnicas-sobre-los-destructores-huesca-y-teruel/ in this case. I would round down some of the calculated values to help readability though, dpm to the closest 100 as an example.
  15. Snowyskies

    Want, no wait. Need De Ruyter as a premium now WG!

    The De Zeven Proviniciën in that tree is the post-war version I believe, so Tre Kronor being before it makes sense chronologically. It was after all completed at an earlier date. The only reason it would hit with more shells is because you'd want to it have a higher accuracy than Scharnhorst. The guns in reality aren't better than the ones on Scharnhorst and there's scant real world justification for the inaccuracy that Scharnhorst has. You also dismiss the armor advantage as it would be a minor thing despite it being a rather major weakness of Design 1047 compared to Scharnhorst. It's more comparable to Dunkerque in that aspect. To be frank I wouldn't want to face Scharnhorst in a Design 1047 in the real world - game balance is of course another thing though. So in short Design 1047 has the speed, AA and maybe torpedo defense advantage over Scharnhorst. In return Scharnhorst has the armor and often very useful torpedoes. Note that while you mention Design 1047 having a turtleback like Scharnhorst it seems this design feature was eliminated in the later designs, reduced to a 30 mm slope. You'd probably want to look at the DP guns on Öland when guessing as to what performance the 120 mm guns on Design 1047 would be. They were unlikely to be the later, automatic 40+ rpm guns on found on Halland and Holland. Yep, we will see. Hard to know what WG thinks about some of these things.
×