In World War II,Where is 60+section torpedo?WG

[JackLee_CN]

sorry!,my english is very bad!

 

I see World War II torpedo parameters.And there is no 60+ section torpedo?WG

 

battleship Steering speed is actually a World War II parameters!

 

---

List of countries in World War ii:
The United States has a major MK.13 torpedo
In February, 1925, the Navy Bureau of ordnance proposed a special aerial torpedo development, code G6, performance requirements are as follows: 908 kg of weight and charge 350 pounds, 3600 meters range, speed of not less than 35 knots, 533 mm in diameter, the length of not more than 18 feet. The torpedo can be projected at 140 miles per hour and under 40 feet. In 1926, the Navy temporarily suspended the plan, and later re implemented, the purpose is to develop a new aircraft torpedo.
After a period of research, the Navy revised the design specifications, the new requirements are as follows, the torpedo weight 1700 pounds, 400 pounds of charge, speed 30, a range of 6300 meters, 23 inches in diameter, length 6 feet 13 inches.
New mk13 in August 1930 began in October 1930 to again interrupted, the reason is "assault" aircraft no torpedo group, 1933 March and the emergence of new problems, the first is pilots don't like the appearance of the t4m torpedo machine, followed by restrictions on the use of torpedo machine is too large (the poor ability of, slow speed, large volume, defensive ability is poor, maintenance costs too high)
Aviation Bureau then decided to give up mk13, development of new 1000 pounds of torpedo, but of the Bureau of ordnance think 1000 pounds of torpedo beyond the requirements of the technology of the time, decided to continue to improve the mk13. When in 1941 the United States into the war, mk13 although the amount is not much, but had to put into combat, the aircraft is tbd-1 and TBF. But MK13 in actual combat performance is not good, not only the speed is too slow and often does not explode. Later part of mk13 also mounted on Pt boats, due to the relatively large diameter of mk13, so in the PT boats the torpedo launcher rather than transmitting tube and launch torpedo from the launcher tossed into the sea.

 

MK13 parameters:
Overall size: 22.5 inches in diameter, 161 inches long
Performance parameters: 33.5 /5800 M
Propulsion system: thermal power
Guidance: no direct guidance

 

MK11 torpedo
Developed in 1926, it was used by destroyers and cruiser.

 

MK11 parameters:
Appearance size: 21 inch torpedo tube standard, full size torpedo
Performance parameters: 46 /5400 M
Section 34 /9140 meters
Section 27 /14000 meters
Propulsion system: thermal power
Guidance: no direct guidance
Note: MK12 is a modified MK11, a total of 200 production

 

MK14 torpedo
Dimensions: 21 inches in diameter, 246 inches long
Performance parameters: 46.3 /4100 M
Section 31.1 /8100 meters
Propulsion system: thermal power
Guidance: no direct guidance
Note: in addition to the use of submarines, as well as part of the use of the PT boat.

 

MK23 torpedo
In order to increase the yield and save material to consider, in 1943 the United States Navy developed the MK23 torpedo, and its parameters and MK14, but the abolition of the low speed mode, which is not popular with the troops.
MK15 torpedo
Due to the 20's MK11/12 torpedo inventory is little, plus 500 pounds of torpedo head power is not enough, the United States Navy developed the MK15 torpedo, performance parameters and MK11/12, but the thunder head charge from 500 pounds to 825 pounds. MK15 torpedo served before World War II, and it produced 9700.
MK18 torpedo
In 1941, the Allied forces seized the German U570 submarine, so the United States in January 1942 obtained a German G7E electric torpedo, Westinghouse Electric Company on the basis of the development of the mk18 torpedo and mk18 torpedoes in World War II sunk 100 million tons of Japanese ships, in addition to the performance slightly almost, mk18 production only Mk14 70%.

 

MK18 performance parameters:
Dimensions: 21 inches in diameter, 245 inches long
Performance parameters: 29 /3600 M
Propulsion system: lead acid battery
Guidance system: no direct guidance
MK24 and MK27
1942 Western Electric Company is responsible for the design, acoustic homing head by the Harvard University Acoustics Laboratory and the Baer telephone laboratory jointly developed in 1942, Western Electric and general electric began production, the Navy purchased 10000 MK24
Due to concerns about the reliability of MK24 sound steering, navy and command brushy development company developed the mk30 mine (the need for confidentiality, then MK24 and mk27 call mine), mk30 is very small, 10 inches in diameter, weight 256 pounds. It and after 10 years of MK43 torpedo almost like, just MK43 with active acoustic homing only. 1943 MK30 developed, but did not produce, because MK24 has shown good performance.
Western Electric also MK24 based developed MK271944 the end of service. During World War II launched 106 mk27 and 33 lives in goal, to sink an enemy ship 24 ships, and wounded nine ships, mk27 for self propelled torpedoes, launched from a torpedo tube launched, the process to time-consuming 8-10 seconds.
Mk27 Lei TOU power shortage, it is difficult to form an effective threat, so Western Electric in the latter stages of the war developed torpedo MK28, MK28 is a full-size passive acoustic homing torpedo, mine head reached 600 pounds of weight, serving in 1945 MK28. World War II launch the 14, hit 4, because the service hastily, but not much, so MK28 hit rate did not expect high, but proved the possibility in submarine development full size acoustic homing torpedo.

 

MK24 performance parameters:
Overall size: 84 inches long, 19 inches in diameter.
Performance parameters: 12 /3600 M
Propulsion system: lead acid battery
Passive acoustic homing guidance system

 

MK27 performance parameters:
Dimensions: 19 inches in diameter, 90 inches long
Performance parameters: 12 /4500 M
Propulsion system: lead acid battery
Passive acoustic homing guidance system

 

MK28 performance parameters:
Dimensions: 21 inches in diameter, 246 inches long
Performance parameters: 20 /3600 M
Propulsion system: lead acid battery
Passive acoustic homing guidance system

 

MK16/17 torpedo
1915 Western Electric Company began chemical power torpedo research work, in August 1927, the project was transferred to the Washington naval laboratory, 1931 to complete the pool test and shape design, September 1937

 

---

The BB is no fun.The team is not united

 

 

enjoy!

[IamTroublemaker]

If you want realism, then your BBs would not be able to hit crap. Bye...

[txtspeak]

If you want realism, then your BBs would not be able to hit crap. Bye...

 

agreed. this is an arcade game, not a simulator. if the game was realistic it would detract from the fun. I learnt that the hard way when... well. my signature says it all really

[JackLee_CN]

If you want realism, then your BBs would not be able to hit crap. Bye...

Inside the game, the speed is a bit out of the way

[JackLee_CN]

 

agreed. this is an arcade game, not a simulator. if the game was realistic it would detract from the fun. I learnt that the hard way when... well. my signature says it all really

 

Hey! It is estimated that the team is not united to have this feeling it

[txtspeak]

 

Hey! It is estimated that the team is not united to have this feeling it

 

I assume you enjoy war thunder then?

[fnord_disc]

Ships are much faster in the game than in real life. So torpedoes are also faster. A ship in real life needs a couple of kilometers to stop from full speed, and even if it bleeds speed with turning it needs 1km+.

 

If you want realistic torpedoes, then also be prepared for ships that only react to your commands after ten minutes.

[Kazomir]

Ships are much faster in the game than in real life. So torpedoes are also faster. A ship in real life needs a couple of kilometers to stop from full speed, and even if it bleeds speed with turning it needs 1km+.

 

If you want realistic torpedoes, then also be prepared for ships that only react to your commands after ten minutes.

 

Heck even starting the bloody thing takes about half an hour.

[ColonelPete]

The BB is no fun.The team is not united

 

 

Then play something else.

 

Other BB captains have no problems.

[EmilyFara]

Ships are much faster in the game than in real life. So torpedoes are also faster. A ship in real life needs a couple of kilometers to stop from full speed, and even if it bleeds speed with turning it needs 1km+.

 

If you want realistic torpedoes, then also be prepared for ships that only react to your commands after ten minutes.

 

The weirdest thing is that the 300m container ship I'm on now feels a lot more maneuverable then some of the battleships ingame.

Annoying thing is that distance is measured in meters and speed is measured in knots.

But the ship I'm on has a turning circle (at full speed 24knots) of 0.7NM(*1852)=1296 meter and the rudder goes from hard starboard to hard port in 13 seconds. Compared to the Iowa with a ruddershift of 26 seconds and a radius of 920m. Seems weird that a warship turns slower then a cargo ship. But might have something to do with the technology difference.

 

I would like a BIT more realism though. The game doesn't take thrust and friction into account.

[T0byJug]

Was going to comment But account is not hidden and has 1 game!  I smell Troll

[Blue_Bug]

 

The weirdest thing is that the 300m container ship I'm on now feels a lot more maneuverable then some of the battleships ingame.

Annoying thing is that distance is measured in meters and speed is measured in knots.

But the ship I'm on has a turning circle (at full speed 24knots) of 0.7NM(*1852)=1296 meter and the rudder goes from hard starboard to hard port in 13 seconds. Compared to the Iowa with a ruddershift of 26 seconds and a radius of 920m. Seems weird that a warship turns slower then a cargo ship. But might have something to do with the technology difference.

 

I would like a BIT more realism though. The game doesn't take thrust and friction into account.

 

The answer is easy. Your cargo ship is at least 25 years yonger as the Iowa. It has almost the same size. But I think with the armor the Iowa will be much and much heavier. The top hull of the Iowa has a ruder shift time of 19,5 seconds. With the upgrade it can be reduced to under the 16 seconds.

 

The only thing weird about it is that  those values should be much higher (if this game was a simulator).

[Spellfire40]

 

The answer is easy. Your cargo ship is at least 25 years yonger as the Iowa. It has almost the same size. But I think with the armor the Iowa will be much and much heavier. The top hull of the Iowa has a ruder shift time of 19,5 seconds. With the upgrade it can be reduced to under the 16 seconds.

 

The only thing weird about it is that  those values should be much higher (if this game was a simulator).

 

Actually modern container ships are biger on Tonage than Iowa. But they have diferent principles. Iowas were Build to keep pace with Carrier groups. Speed and range was the main concerns. Turning circle while a desireable trait came secondary. Big Container ships are build to work as cost effecent as posible. Range and fuel consumtion are trait to be sought after maneuvering in crowded habors are also a concern in many designs.

Ships are build with a Mission in Mind. Specialized ships are best but have drawbacks. Allrounder on the other hand have a hard time beating more specialized ships on thir strong point.

 

[Aotearas]

 

Heck even starting the bloody thing takes about half an hour.

 

Half an hour?

 

Going from cold turbines to power took the better part of a day.

[fnord_disc]

 

Actually modern container ships are biger on Tonage than Iowa. But they have diferent principles. Iowas were Build to keep pace with Carrier groups. Speed and range was the main concerns. Turning circle while a desireable trait came secondary. Big Container ships are build to work as cost effecent as posible. Range and fuel consumtion are trait to be sought after maneuvering in crowded habors are also a concern in many designs.

Ships are build with a Mission in Mind. Specialized ships are best but have drawbacks. Allrounder on the other hand have a hard time beating more specialized ships on thir strong point.

 

 

This is a common misconception and usually not true. It only applies to the largest container ships.

 

The confusion usually is because tonnage is not displacement. Warships are measured in displacement and container ships in tonnage and these are not the same.

 

Maersks Triple-E class container ships, 400 meters long and 165,000 deadweight tonnage, only displace 55,000 empty, the same as Iowa. And these are already the largest container ships in the world.

 

The vast majority of container ships is much smaller in displacement than a battleship, mostly because the heavy battleship armor adds a large amount of weight.

[Kazomir]

 

Half an hour?

 

Going from cold turbines to power took the better part of a day.

 

Forgive my lack of knowledge. I only had an anime line as a source. ( zipang )

[051G3]

 

This is a common misconception and usually not true. It only applies to the largest container ships.

 

The confusion usually is because tonnage is not displacement. Warships are measured in displacement and container ships in tonnage and these are not the same.

 

Maersks Triple-E class container ships, 400 meters long and 165,000 deadweight tonnage, only displace 55,000 empty, the same as Iowa. And these are already the largest container ships in the world.

 

The vast majority of container ships is much smaller in displacement than a battleship, mostly because the heavy battleship armor adds a large amount of weight.

 

Amusing answer. Did Stewie533 say he was steering an empty container ship? 

 

[Benedictus_de_Suede]

If you want realism, then your BBs would not be able to hit crap. Bye...

 

That is just nonsens...read some naval history. Tired of that comment AND please dont give me some statistic crap from the "Battle of Jutland"...

 

[EmilyFara]

 

This is a common misconception and usually not true. It only applies to the largest container ships.

 

The confusion usually is because tonnage is not displacement. Warships are measured in displacement and container ships in tonnage and these are not the same.

 

Maersks Triple-E class container ships, 400 meters long and 165,000 deadweight tonnage, only displace 55,000 empty, the same as Iowa. And these are already the largest container ships in the world.

 

The vast majority of container ships is much smaller in displacement than a battleship, mostly because the heavy battleship armor adds a large amount of weight.

Partly correct. Tonnage and displacement are directly proportional as tonnage is a derivative of weight and that directly translates to displacement. Because all floating object displace the same weight of water as the weight of the object with everything in it (Archimedes Law). 

While the ship I am on won't win any size trophies anymore, she is still quite large. With 300m long, 42,8m wide and a draft of 13 meters she displaces quite a bit of water. And if I compare that to the USS Iowa with her 270m long, 33m wide and draft of 11,3m I can already say that we're probably already a lot heavier then she was.

I checked our displacement, and that is 97.433m³ which with an average seawater density of 1.025t/m³ would mean we displace 99.869 tons of water at the moment. Compared to the 45.000 tons of the USS Iowa.

 

 

Actually modern container ships are biger on Tonage than Iowa. But they have diferent principles. Iowas were Build to keep pace with Carrier groups. Speed and range was the main concerns. Turning circle while a desireable trait came secondary. Big Container ships are build to work as cost effecent as posible. Range and fuel consumtion are trait to be sought after maneuvering in crowded habors are also a concern in many designs.

Ships are build with a Mission in Mind. Specialized ships are best but have drawbacks. Allrounder on the other hand have a hard time beating more specialized ships on thir strong point.

 

Actually, when it comes to container ship design maneuverability comes secondary. The most important things are cargo carried, fuel efficiency and speed. This means that while she is able to reach quite high top speeds she is quite gimped when it comes to ports. Not that it matters that much, all the ports that want ships of our size or bigger have to comply with their limitations and provide tugs to help her the rest of the way.

The ship I'm on is also build to have optimal hydrodynamics but the newer ships like the Maersk McKinney Moller are more shaped like a box with less maneuverability. They could change rudder design to improve maneuvering, like add a fish talk at the end. But while it boosts maneuverability it would reduce fuel efficiency and maximum speed.

Changing from a fixed propellor to Azipod propulsion would also improve maneuverability while not limiting her top speed or fuel efficiency. But because those stick our from the bottom of the ship it would mean less draft can be achieved, thus less weight carried, thus less cargo carried.

[Bl4ckh0g]

If you want realism, then your BBs would not be able to hit crap. Bye...

 

Actually, BBs are not that far off from their historical accuracy.

Well Ok, I only know that the Iowa achieved a hit ratio of 10,5% from 18 km against a Bismarck sized target(broadside) (32-3% from 9 km)

I think that's around what you'd get in-game as well, no?

[Historynerd]

Actually, BBs are not that far off from their historical accuracy.

Well Ok, I only know that the Iowa achieved a hit ratio of 10,5% from 18 km against a Bismarck sized target(broadside) (32-3% from 9 km)

I think that's around what you'd get in-game as well, no?

 

Then I, as a barely average player at best, I have put the mighty Iowa to shame, if I can achieve 27% hits with my Arkansas Beta.

 

No offense, but, although it's wrong to claim that BBs IRL couldn't hit anything (they wouldn't have been built otherwise), their accuracy was decidedly worse than the one we experience in the game... even with RNG coming to play.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

Then I, as a barely average player at best, I have put the mighty Iowa to shame, if I can achieve 27% hits with my Arkansas Beta.

 

No offense, but, although it's wrong to claim that BBs IRL couldn't hit anything (they wouldn't have been built otherwise), their accuracy was decidedly worse than the one we experience in the game... even with RNG coming to play.

 

I really only wanted to compare that to the higher tier battleships, because as You go down the tiers the hit ratios drop to single digits.(which is utterly unplayable)

But the higher tier battleships, tier 8-10 may have hit ratios that are more historically accurate than thought.

[Historynerd]

I really only wanted to compare that to the higher tier battleships, because as You go down the tiers the hit ratios drop to single digits.(which is utterly unplayable)

But the higher tier battleships, tier 8-10 may have hit ratios that are more historically accurate than thought.

 

It seems it's difficult to get an idea of how are the averate hit ratios per ship, since all one gets is the average for a single player, or the average for the whole server.

 

In any case, I looked around; perhaps my research is biased and not meaningful, but after looking up a few guys who are good with the Iowa (therefore presuming that they know what they've doing with it), I saw that the lowest hit rate I found was 27%.

So, I'm not sure if the hit rate changes that dramatically between low and high tiers (presuming, of course, someone who is skilled enough at shooting, which however doesn't seem so difficult to me, given that we're not talking citadels or crits here, but the total hit average).

[AgarwaenME]

 

Actually, BBs are not that far off from their historical accuracy.

Well Ok, I only know that the Iowa achieved a hit ratio of 10,5% from 18 km against a Bismarck sized target(broadside) (32-3% from 9 km)

I think that's around what you'd get in-game as well, no?

 

You're comparing ideal circumstances to battle circumstances.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

You're comparing ideal circumstances to battle circumstances.

 

Except the game doesn't simulate battle circumstances.

I think.

I hope.

 

Yeah It definitely doesn't, given the rate of fire of some of the guns(such as Aoba, Furutaka probably even some Soviet cruisers), disregarding the changes for the sake of game balance.