Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Trainspite

The mistakes of RN CAs in game.

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
4,077 battles

Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering, the permanent camouflage that comes with the event for the ships isn't historically correct as a I have pointed out in another timeline. Just to head off any questions about it.

On 1/15/2020 at 2:33 AM, Trainspite said:

Unfortunately, it isn't a historical scheme (way to round out my complaints about the entire line - even the camouflage is wrong.)

The Victorian schemes had a black lower hull with white superstructure/upper hull and (buff/yellow) funnels. The East Indies scheme had a 507C light grey hull and upperworks with Primrose Yellow funnels only. The China station scheme was a 507C hull with 507B home fleet dark grey superstructure before being replaced by 507C all over. I haven't found any ships with a white hull and yellow superstructure in photos as of yet. 

A giveaway of their non-authenticity is close to the stern too. 

image.png.3664ce56835fdec71c1921ec9fb3c8b0.png

Sure it looks nice (if not historically accurate), but having text plastered over the stern ruins it for me. A bit of a let down from the clean Italian camouflages which I do appreciate.

It's definitely a closer match to the scheme used by the USN Great White Fleet, but not to any camouflage or style the RN used.

 

 

And some sources:

- Norman Friedman's, British Cruisers, Two World Wars and After
- Richard Perkins, British Warship Recognition, Volume III: Cruisers 1865-1939 Part 1
- Imperial War Museum - Useful for finding some online photos
- Lillicrap workbook via David K Brown - Including ADM 138 624 'Armoured Cruiser Designs to carry 8in or 9.2in Guns'
- The excellent work on RN camouflage by James Duff aka. Sovereign Hobbies & co.
- The useful but unreliable British and Commonwealth Warship Camouflage of WWII Volume III by Mal Wright
-  David K Brown, Nelson to Vanguard, Warship Design and Development 1923-1945
-  Various forum users on shipbucket and modelwarships - Smurf, Hood, [edited] and so on...

 

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
750 posts
7,530 battles

I read your posts with great interest - even though these things don't interest me. To explain: I do like history and I suppose military history is part of it, but I don't care if a ship is presented in the wrong color scheme or bearing wrong calibre guns.

 

However, I did love how much you care. I found your fervor and research interesting and I learnt a little bit about ships of the Royal Navy. As a bonus (always a cherry on top for me), the post was well written, you used correct punctuation and even called a ship "Frankenstein's monster", instead of the common alternative (which besmirches the good monster's name - or non-name, if you will).

 

Anyway, all this to say thanks.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,193 posts
20,211 battles

A very interesting read and I had noticed that the models didn't look quite right (Surrey especially looks wrong) but I had not put the level of effort in that the OP has, so it was very interesting to read the details. 

 

I have only played the Devonshire thus far and I do agree she's rather lacklustre, sure you can damage farm with the HE but she lacks impact ( unless you run into a DD) your an annoyance to BBs too much akin to the Italians for my liking.

 

I do look forward to hearing more about the Goliath and is she a product of WGs designs or is she based on a real RN design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
170 posts
23,045 battles
2 hours ago, Bindolaf_Werebane said:

the post was well written, you used correct punctuation and even called a ship "Frankenstein's monster", instead of the common alternative (which besmirches the good monster's name - or non-name, if you will).

This.....I enjoyed, while drinking a coffee, or, to be more pacific, an espresso.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
135 posts
3,352 battles
10 minutes ago, The_Finnster said:

This.....I enjoyed, while drinking a coffee, or, to be more pacific, an espresso.

Don't you mean an expresso?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,432 posts
4,673 battles

Nice to see the thread pop up here too. Train gave you a very brief version of my page-long tirade about the problems with the armament and that will suffice, I suppose, to underline the glaring 234mm-diametre point, however, should you be interested in the full-length huffing and puffing, open the spoiler box provided below

 

Spoiler
On 30/10/2019 at 10:15 AM, piritskenyer said:

Opening disclaimers: 

  1. Throughout this post I'm going to be using the following formula for AP damage: 18,588 x [V0 x m]0,4787 . This formula has consistently been following ingame AP shell damage based on the shells' listed weight and muzzle velocity. Rounding is going to be to the nearest 50.
  2. For now I'm only going to list issues concerning weaponry in technical and historical context (in most cases these two are connected)

Disclaimers done, let's begin.

 

Devonshire, London, Surrey, Bedford - 8" guns

 

The first three ships (Devon, London and Surrey) are (and should be) armed with the 8" Mk VIII gun, designed in 1923. The gun is 50 calibres long and fires a 256 pound or 116,1 kilogram shell at a muzzle velocity of 2805 f/s or 855 m/s. This gives us the correct ingame 4550 damage upon citadel hit (well, I say correct, it's 4581, so it should be rounded up to 4600, but close enough) 
Bedford, being based on the 1939/40 designs for a 3x3x 8" CA carries the 8" Mk IX gun, designed in 1940/41. This gun is also 50 calibres long, but is intended to fire a heavier 290 pound or 131,5 kilogram shell at a muzzle velocity of 2670 f/s or 814 m/s. This should give us 4750 damage upon citadel hit (4752).

London has the correct gun stats at 4550 with 116kg @ 855m/s, however Devon, Surrey and Bedford somehow get the new gun/new shell velocity but retain the old shell weight which gives us a mangled dataset of 116kg @ 814m/s which comes up to the current ingame 4500 damage upon AP citadel (4475). 
In reality what they should be:

  1. Devon: 116kg @ 855m/s for 4550
  2. Surrey: 116kg @ 855m/s for 4550
  3. Bedford: 131,5kg @ 814m/s for 4750.

Devon and Surrey should not get new shells as they are and would be carrying the old Mk VIII gun. The new shells needed about almost three full kg's more propellant, so it's not just a question of swapping shells.
Beford's turret seems like a reasonable design based upon the Town and Crown Colony classes', which is entirely plausible, given that Vickers would have been in charge of designing these weapons' mountings.

 

Cheshire, Drake, Goliath - 9.2"

 

Now this one is the real problem. The ingame name attached to the weapons is 

Quote

234mm/50 Mk XII

The shell velocity is listed as 881 m/s, the AP and HE simply as 6 crh AP and HE, and the damage is 5550 for AP.

There are several issues with this, both technically, and historically:

  1. The Mk XII was a rebored 240mm/50 export weapon and as such ended up being a 51.35 calibre weapon, so the name is off the bat technically incorrect.
  2. The entire stock of Mk XII weapons was scrapped in the 30's, so could have not ended up as shipboard weapons.
  3. 881 m/s is the muzzle velocity of the 2 crh shell set of the Mk XI weapons, and is nonsensical, as the Mk XII fired shells at 896 m/s standard and 933 m/s supercharged. 
  4. The shells for the Mk XII weapons were 4crh AP, 4crh HE and 8crh HE, not 6. 

Basically the weapon/shell/muzzle velocity combination is so implausible it is nearly impossible (and is historically speaking just that: impossible). It is all the more impossible since the ships are based on designs that were developed after the stock of Mk XII guns has been scrapped (a not-so-great stock to begin with - some dozen if I'm reading things right).

Any 9.2"-armed heavy cruiser at this point would have been armed without a doubt in my mind with 9.2" Mk X guns. These are 47 calibre weapons, wire wound in construction, so similarly "obsolete" as the 15" Mk I. Also, just like the 15" Mk I, the 9.2" Mk X had a new projectile set developed for it, namely the Mk XII 6 (5/10) crh projectile set (which the ingame description is no doubt referring to). 
Why would the Mk X's be used instead of the newer Mk XI's that were still in stock and were 50 calibre weapons? Because the Mk XI were trash. They suffered from dispersion issues and early on from "steel choke", and were in fact so trash that out of 45 built, only 12 weren't scrapped by 1939, but even though they were still around, their mountings have been scrapped the year before. [Clarification as of 06/02/2020: As far as I could find out, the RN was actively scrapping Mk XI guns even after war with Germany broke out]
The retention of the Mk X turned out to be a good decision in the end as the 6 crh Mk XII projectile set proved to be excellent, with the AP shell having an unusually great bursting charge (5.9kgs - in comparison:  Scharnhorst's 11.1" AP had 7.8 kgs, less than 3 kilos more), very good post-penetration characteristics and reasonably good penetration.

 

Right then, 9.2"/47 Mk X it is.

 

The weapon is a 234mm, 47 calibre rifle firing a 380 pound or 172.4 kilogram AP shell at a muzzle velocity of 2748 f/s or 838 m/s standard, or 2872 f/s or 875 m/s supercharged. These datasets give us 5500 (5485) damage upon citadel hit standard and 5600 (5600) damage upon citadel hit supercharged.

 

 

With this, I leave you all for a much more angry style of reading

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,367 posts
4,202 battles

Thanks for the post ... so even one of the largest Navies of the era got the fake ship treatment from WG ... what a surprise ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
5 hours ago, Trainspite said:

- More minor things like single fire torps and good concealment.

Nice post, but concealment is minor? It's one of the most important ship characteristics in the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,432 posts
4,673 battles
1 minute ago, CastorTolagi said:

The RN never favored heavy cruisers in the first place and it shows in this "tech tree" that is nearly as fantasy as a certain BB line

 

They never favoured them, true, however they really wished they could have them anyway. The light cruisers enjoyed a higher priority because of their better fit for trade protection (and overall multi-purpose nature), however seeing what other, rival navies were up to (German Hipper class, Italian Zara class, Japanese Myoko, Takao and refit Mogami classes),  plus what their allies were up to (USN's USS Wichita and later Baltimore class and the French Algérie) the RN would have liked to have modern heavy cruisers. They obviously didn't get to build any, mostly for budgetary reasons, but they would have liked to.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,242 posts
30,016 battles

Nice article there and I agree on many things.

 

Just one thing tho

 

6 hours ago, Trainspite said:

Oh, and just in case anyone was wondering, the permanent camouflage that comes with the event for the ships isn't historically correct as a I have pointed out in another timeline. Just to head off any questions about it.

It's definitely a closer match to the scheme used by the USN Great White Fleet, but not to any camouflage or style the RN used.

 

Permanent camos for T5 to T8 is based on historical camo used by Counties before ww2, I think while on service with the "China Station" Squadron

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/berwick27_lge.jpg

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/cornwall28_lge.jpg

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/suffolk34_lge.jpg

 

Of course there should not be "Royal Navy" letters on it. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
5,144 posts
21,203 battles
19 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Nice article there and I agree on many things.

 

Just one thing tho

 

 

Permanent camos for T5 to T8 is based on historical camo used by Counties before ww2, I think while on service with the "China Station" Squadron

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/berwick27_lge.jpg

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/cornwall28_lge.jpg

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/suffolk34_lge.jpg

 

Of course there should not be "Royal Navy" letters on it. 

 

 

 

 

Love @Trainspite post. i count my self a navy buff RN in perticular but dont have a patch on him.. 

 

@fumtu  Brave man correcting Train.... :Smile_honoring:  So many have tried and been proved wrong.... but you seem to have posted the evidence so you may survive this .... :Smile_hiding:

 

I got the Devonshire last night i like the white/gold camo.. But when i sore the huge ROYAL NAVY on the side it was like :Smile_facepalm:  I cant imagen Royal Navy ever doing that.. Even during something like Neutrality patrols like they did of coast of Spain in the late 30's

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
793 posts
2,079 battles

I need to commit seppuku because the first thing I honestly thought when I saw the thread title is”another player who thinks broadsiding BBs all day should not be punished”

 

very well written post though on the issues with the RN CAs.

for drake and Goliath I’m not 100% sure if there were any plans at all for them, even actual sketches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,532 posts
18,814 battles

Some random thoughts...

 

Hawkins' B-Hull and her AA guns.  WG aren't far off the mark here. RN thinking on cruiser AA was that there should be "four cornered" fire - at least one twin 4 inch mount to cover each corner of the ship, plus two Pom-pom mounts to cover each side of the ship, plus mounts to fire forwards, and as many 20mm Oerlikons as could be mounted. If you look at the CLs - Leander's A Hull especially - you will see this in action. 

 

The problem with having twin mounts on Hawkins is that they aren't deck level, like Leander, but up on a bandstand mounting in the middle of the ship. I would have thought that would give considerable issues with weight, as they would be trying to mount twin, shielded mounts in the place of single unshielded guns.  It's almost certainly why Emerald still has her single 4 inch guns, located in similar positions.

 

Devonshire - the suspicion here is that WG intended her to be the late war ship, with X turret removed in compensation for consumables (smoke) that they later decided against, and stuck the turret back on again.

 

Surrey - much too tall! That's a battleship superstructure, not a Cruiser. The Surrey design was from the late 1920s and the RN hadn't designed anything that looked remotely like that. The County class had plenty of room for expansion compared to other RN cruisers but the in-game Surrey looks horribly, horribly top-heavy.

 

Albemarle - I'm going to disagree with the OP here, I think this is the best-looking British cruiser in the game. What it resembles is a Southampton-type Town-class cruiser with the aircraft handling equipment and hanger placed harmoniously in the centre of the ship, rather than the brutal track carved down through the Edinburgh-type (which I think makes it look like the ship is about to snap in half). Here's a pic of Southampton by way of comparison: 

 

 

954944947_HMSSouthampton.jpg.53cd5c203cfe724897cc6aa2d3d45ea5.jpg

 

The carving out of the jowls of the superstructure to make way for the secondary turrets is elegant, and overall the Albemarle design looks "right". The only problem I have is the presence of those 4.5" MK VI turrets, which seem to have escaped from Neptune or Daring. There is an issue here for WG because the 4.5" turrets used on Ark Royal or Renown wouldn't be suitable for such a position... but I think the MkIV turrets (as seen on Jutland and Drake) would look better.

 

I also think it's a great ship to play, versatile and with much bouncebackability. 

 

As for Drake and Goliath, and especially their guns.... from what I've read any 9.2 inch gun cruiser would have had weapons of a new design, not recycled WW1 era 9.2 inchers (even though those weapons were quite formidable), and it was largely the difficulties of making these new weapons which caused the RN to look to 8 inch designs (the idea being to borrow as much tech from the Americans as was possible). 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,242 posts
30,016 battles
Quote

The interwar years found ships of the Royal Navy wearing one of four different paint schemes depending upon which command they were attached to.  For vessels of the Home Fleet the colors were Home Fleet Dark Gray.  Ships of the Mediterranean Fleet wore an overall light gray (named Mediterranean Light Gray) as did those serving on the West Indian and South American stations.  Vessels attached to the Indian Ocean were usually painted overall white, while ships of the China and Far East commands had white hulls and upperworks with buff funnels.

 

478841512_Screenshot_2020-02-06CountyClassCruisers.thumb.png.5e288b86a77576a7adfd7b7d8d6cc585.png

 

Another image of HMS Berwick

 

HMS%20Berwick%20-%20Countyclass%20heavy%

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,532 posts
18,814 battles

For those of you watching in black and white... (I'd actually like a Sepia toned camo for that "vintage photo" look).

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONUS]
[BONUS]
Beta Tester
3,097 posts
11,677 battles
3 hours ago, piritskenyer said:

 

They never favoured them, true, however they really wished they could have them anyway. The light cruisers enjoyed a higher priority because of their better fit for trade protection (and overall multi-purpose nature), however seeing what other, rival navies were up to (German Hipper class, Italian Zara class, Japanese Myoko, Takao and refit Mogami classes),  plus what their allies were up to (USN's USS Wichita and later Baltimore class and the French Algérie) the RN would have liked to have modern heavy cruisers. They obviously didn't get to build any, mostly for budgetary reasons, but they would have liked to.

 

Some of it had to do with following treaties like Washington and London also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,532 posts
18,814 battles
34 minutes ago, T0byJug said:

interesting there was a Hawkins Class Heavy Cruiser with 4 twin 102mm mounts she was also refited with here 7 8 inch guns being changed to 9 6 inch also in single mounts

The Effingham? Interesting ship and yes, twin 4inch AA mounts as mentioned. But also as mentioned, they are on the edge of the main deck, not in the central bandstand, which her reconstruction allowed.

25 minutes ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

Some of it had to do with following treaties like Washington and London also.

Most of the Treaty stuff was down to the British. They'd realised at the end of WW1 that they needed more cruisers for trade protection than any other navy in the world, and if they allowed the Heavy Cruiser to become the norm, they would be out built and outgunned in every theatre of potential war. By limiting size and tonnage on an international basis they could, at least, have a navy that they could afford and which could be comparable with those of other potential adversaries. The plan was for overseas cruiser forces to remain as either sacrificial disruptive elements until the arrival of the main fleet (rather like the ABDACOM force at the Battle of the Java Sea). It also resulted in the "stick as many guns on the smallest possible ship" design ethos, which we all enjoy so much in the shape of Leander and Fiji...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
5,144 posts
21,203 battles
27 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

The Effingham? Interesting ship and yes, twin 4inch AA mounts as mentioned. But also as mentioned, they are on the edge of the main deck, not in the central bandstand, which her reconstruction allowed.

hawkins.thumb.png.8d7c1f75a72ed7f26118e984426e3d78.pnghawkins3.thumb.png.0cdc46a495e742c2ce423c81837a27d7.png

 

There infact both above the main deck at about the same Level in bandstands or on the deck housing.

 

One of the Hawkins was completed as a CV so would suggest they were very stable ships and the original design must have had a very low center of gravity not top heavy at all

imageproxy.jpg.4b1b8296359c7430056894cc9069dc5b.jpgvind.png.70b4e3dd9f1ffe18d4fd712182ce1a94.png

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,780 posts
17,292 battles
3 hours ago, fumtu said:

 

478841512_Screenshot_2020-02-06CountyClassCruisers.thumb.png.5e288b86a77576a7adfd7b7d8d6cc585.png

 

Another image of HMS Berwick

 

HMS%20Berwick%20-%20Countyclass%20heavy%

Most books always mix up the China station scheme (White hull, grey upper works, grey funnels) with the East Indies scheme (White hull, white upper works, Marigold funnels)

Grey is easily mistaken for yellow on black and white photos.

The upper works should be white (or yellow swapped for grey) on RN CA premium event camo. No Biggie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,432 posts
4,673 battles
3 hours ago, Hedgehog1963 said:

 

Some of it had to do with following treaties like Washington and London also.

 

Obviously, however I'm mainly referring to them a) not filling their tonnage allowance with any heavy cruisers and b) when the war starts not realising any of the designs put forward becaue they have to churn out DD's and existing CL designs, etc.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
4,077 battles
21 hours ago, Bindolaf_Werebane said:

I read your posts with great interest - even though these things don't interest me. To explain: I do like history and I suppose military history is part of it, but I don't care if a ship is presented in the wrong color scheme or bearing wrong calibre guns.

 

However, I did love how much you care. I found your fervor and research interesting and I learnt a little bit about ships of the Royal Navy. As a bonus (always a cherry on top for me), the post was well written, you used correct punctuation and even called a ship "Frankenstein's monster", instead of the common alternative (which besmirches the good monster's name - or non-name, if you will).

 

Anyway, all this to say thanks.

I know it isn't a high priority to many, people care more about the game as a whole, 'tis only a game afterall. For me, it was a passing interest from many books and models made as a child that started me off, and since playing in 2015 I've fallen deeper and deeper into the hole of naval history. I refuse to come out now, it is very comfortable down here.

 

I appreciate such high praise, but I should note that I am more of a messenger, relaying information from trustworthy sources and serving it up to counter the mistakes and questionable decisions WG has made. Decisions that I sometimes have a hard time believing WG have made, since they have the resources to know otherwise. The inconsistency is wild sometimes. 

 

As for the monster, he never asked to be created, just like the fictional ships that WG conjure up. As much as I abhor creations like Monarch Mongrel, the creator is where I lay the blame. 

 

19 hours ago, lovelacebeer said:

 

I do look forward to hearing more about the Goliath and is she a product of WGs designs or is she based on a real RN design. 

 

If only I could get some sort of conclusive response from the people responsible for Goliath...
If only...

 

18 hours ago, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

Nice post, but concealment is minor? It's one of the most important ship characteristics in the game.

 

 

I did second guess that when writing, concealment is a pretty huge factor overall, so I could have worded it better. When looking at the RN CAs as a whole however, I felt it was a minor enough factor compared to the more obvious weaknesses and strengths. 

 

18 hours ago, fumtu said:

Nice article there and I agree on many things.

 

Just one thing tho

 

 

Permanent camos for T5 to T8 is based on historical camo used by Counties before ww2, I think while on service with the "China Station" Squadron

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/berwick27_lge.jpg

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/cornwall28_lge.jpg

 

https://www.world-war.co.uk/popup1.php3?file=Kent/suffolk34_lge.jpg

 

Of course there should not be "Royal Navy" letters on it. 

 

 

 

I've been to that website before and marvelled at the graphics. And then subsequently learned that they aren't accurate to what the RN actually had, which is not entirely unexpected, the images are dated to 2008, and we know a bit more on RN camouflages now than then. 

 

As creamgravy said, the China Station colours are commonly thought of as buff and white, but the colours used, in the photographs, on several period-models and listed on Admiralty documents at the time are 507C Light (Mediterranean) Grey, and 507B Home Fleet Dark Grey. From 1935 the China station switched to overall 507C. 
https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/67440.html - A model of Kent from the early 1930s made by a crewman.

 

Further details and evidence can be found on the model warships forum, I trust their judgement on it.
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6188&start=280

 

 

17 hours ago, howardxu_23 said:

I need to commit seppuku because the first thing I honestly thought when I saw the thread title is”another player who thinks broadsiding BBs all day should not be punished”

 

very well written post though on the issues with the RN CAs.

for drake and Goliath I’m not 100% sure if there were any plans at all for them, even actual sketches.

 

Glad to see the forum hasn't changed much then, if that is still a common issue!

 

For sketches, I assume the best place to find them would be in the constructor's notebooks, which may not always be complete, but are the best place to start. Since W.G.John was working on these for some time from 1938-1941, some items of interest should still be around in the archives or NMM.

 

17 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Some random thoughts...

 

Hawkins' B-Hull and her AA guns.  WG aren't far off the mark here. RN thinking on cruiser AA was that there should be "four cornered" fire - at least one twin 4 inch mount to cover each corner of the ship, plus two Pom-pom mounts to cover each side of the ship, plus mounts to fire forwards, and as many 20mm Oerlikons as could be mounted. If you look at the CLs - Leander's A Hull especially - you will see this in action. 

 

The problem with having twin mounts on Hawkins is that they aren't deck level, like Leander, but up on a bandstand mounting in the middle of the ship. I would have thought that would give considerable issues with weight, as they would be trying to mount twin, shielded mounts in the place of single unshielded guns.  It's almost certainly why Emerald still has her single 4 inch guns, located in similar positions.

 

Devonshire - the suspicion here is that WG intended her to be the late war ship, with X turret removed in compensation for consumables (smoke) that they later decided against, and stuck the turret back on again.

 

Surrey - much too tall! That's a battleship superstructure, not a Cruiser. The Surrey design was from the late 1920s and the RN hadn't designed anything that looked remotely like that. The County class had plenty of room for expansion compared to other RN cruisers but the in-game Surrey looks horribly, horribly top-heavy.

 

Albemarle - I'm going to disagree with the OP here, I think this is the best-looking British cruiser in the game. What it resembles is a Southampton-type Town-class cruiser with the aircraft handling equipment and hanger placed harmoniously in the centre of the ship, rather than the brutal track carved down through the Edinburgh-type (which I think makes it look like the ship is about to snap in half). Here's a pic of Southampton by way of comparison: 

 

 

954944947_HMSSouthampton.jpg.53cd5c203cfe724897cc6aa2d3d45ea5.jpg

 

The carving out of the jowls of the superstructure to make way for the secondary turrets is elegant, and overall the Albemarle design looks "right". The only problem I have is the presence of those 4.5" MK VI turrets, which seem to have escaped from Neptune or Daring. There is an issue here for WG because the 4.5" turrets used on Ark Royal or Renown wouldn't be suitable for such a position... but I think the MkIV turrets (as seen on Jutland and Drake) would look better.

 

I also think it's a great ship to play, versatile and with much bouncebackability. 

 

As for Drake and Goliath, and especially their guns.... from what I've read any 9.2 inch gun cruiser would have had weapons of a new design, not recycled WW1 era 9.2 inchers (even though those weapons were quite formidable), and it was largely the difficulties of making these new weapons which caused the RN to look to 8 inch designs (the idea being to borrow as much tech from the Americans as was possible). 

 

 

It is clear that WG were trying to imitate other RN cruisers with Hawkins B-hull, but I think they forgot what ship Hawkins was exactly, and what her contemporaries were (Emerald). Trying to refit Hawkins with twin 4" would require some re-configuring of the superstructure amidships, as happened with other cruisers refitted with the twin 4". Certainly trying to put the circa 17 ton shielded twin 4" mount in the same bandstands as the 7 ton shielded single 4" is patently stupid. They barely fit, and there would be some considerable difficulty operating them in such a limited space. Being moved to the side of the ship as on Effingham, with new structures to the support them would be the obvious way to fit twin 4" to Hawkins.

 

That is beside the point that trying to slap some new AA on 1930s Hawkins when you have the actual wartime AA outfit of Hawkins and Frobisher available as inspiration, which would be a more accurate way of going about things. 

 

With Devonshire, I suspect it is just what resources WG had to hand. They didn't put in the effort to model the different hull of Kent with the hull of London on hand, and so chose Devon, with a late war outfit. Personally I think Devon would have been better off with her historical 6-gun configuration and a higher RoF to compensate. I find it fairly hard to comprehend that WG would go chose a 6-gun configuration intentionally compared to the well known original 8-gun County-class configuration, but stranger things have been done.

 

Different tastes and all. I can't stand Albemarle for it being a cloned hull of Neptune, which shows in many ways, not least the secondaries and citadel. The superstructure is certainly not as ugly as Goliath's with the huge overhangs, but it certainly looks out of RN practice to me when compared to the Town, Crown Colony and Minotaur/Swiftsure classes, all of which don't have the significant compass platform overhangs that Albemarle has. For secondaries, the 15,500t January 1940 design had 6x 2 4". It's clear that this design only serves as a mild inspiration only for Albemarle, even if the historical article on the mainpage portal would have you believe otherwise.

 

The turret at least would be of a new design, there would have to be some infrastructure changes to accommodate a new large triple or even quadruple 9.2" turret. However I believe 8" weapons were the main focus, especially going past 1939 into 1940, when considerable support for building a new CA was around, and W.G.John's pre-war large cruiser designs were brought back into focus.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Beta Tester
163 posts
19,484 battles
22 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

 

As for Drake and Goliath, and especially their guns.... from what I've read any 9.2 inch gun cruiser would have had weapons of a new design, not recycled WW1 era 9.2 inchers (even though those weapons were quite formidable), and it was largely the difficulties of making these new weapons which caused the RN to look to 8 inch designs (the idea being to borrow as much tech from the Americans as was possible). 

 

IMO it would be ordered to design the new gun but Admiralty would pull Vanguard with Drake/Goliath because of losses in 1939-42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×