Old Mikasa/Pre-dreadnought Appreciation Society thread - Please see page 27

[triumphgt6]

Please add me to the list of addicts - the Mikasa is however doing nothing for my win rate - I did however have a game today when 11 of the 14 shots I fired hit - is that a record percentage?

[HMS_Worcester]

Please add me to the list of addicts - the Mikasa is however doing nothing for my win rate - I did however have a game today when 11 of the 14 shots I fired hit - is that a record percentage?

 

11 out of 14? Either witchcraft or you sold your soul to the devil!

 

Good job, and welcome to the fleet captain

[HMS_Worcester]

Good evening captains

 

I'm bloody knackered after my first day at work in my new job but realised it has been a while since I posted some historic stuff. So here are some pics of the Formidable-class Pre-dreadnought Battleships that Mikasa was based on (the only difference being Mikasa has two extra 6 pounders added). The similarities mean WG could easily add this in game as a RN premium.....hint hint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formidable-class_battleship

 

HMS Bulwark

.

 

HMS London

 

HMS Irresistible and another at Malta

[Procrastes]

 

You sank a Mikasa! In a damn Russian ship!! Get out, you are no longer welcome in the society!!!!

 

 

Just kidding   I really must get the Diana, as soon as I get some more doubloons.

 

I like the Diana mostly because of her unusual paint job; that green lustre gives her a distinct appearance in the game.

I haven't yet made up my mind about her other in-game qualities. She's got good range for a tier II ship, and a solid 152 mm punch. But she usually can't fire more than four guns per salvo, and she plods along at a measly 19 knots... there is very little room to get either in or out of a tight spot. The Bogatyr at tier III is just so much better at everything, and it's an even better looking ship to boot.

[Procrastes]

 

 

I never said it was simple. The old lady took quite a beating before she went down.

 

...all right, that kind of of came out wrong. Don't quote me out of context, please?

[MrFingers]

Mikasa, please take a step aside, I've heard they liked secondaries here!

 

The French "turreted battleship" Masséna, one of a group of five roughly equal battleships from the 1890's. Other ships were the Charles Martel, Jauréguiberry, Bouvet, and Carnot.

• 2 × 305 mm/40 (12 in) Modèle 1893 guns
• 2 × 274 mm/45 (10.8 in) Modèle 1893 guns
• 8 × 138 mm/45 (5.5 in) Modèle 1888 guns
• 8 × 100 mm (3.9 in) guns

 

The Masséna did have the biggest chin though!

[Procrastes]

That is... quite a distinguished-looking ship.

[deadly_if_swallowed]

Ramming speed!

[Maximilian_Graf_von_Spee]

Guys, have a look at what I found at https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/06/01/wows-qa-1st-june-2016/ .

 

"3. The IJN Mikasa will not be sold on the Russian server till the implementation of the manual control on the secondary armament, which is particularly good on this ship."

 

Is it just me or does it sound like they are really thinking about making her secondaries controllable! 

Wouldn`t that be a joy?

[MrFingers]

I'll have MrsFingers play the game then... she's a woman, thus she is good at multitasking!

[deadly_if_swallowed]

I am rather curious about this implementation, but would not judge too early.

Manual gun control at 3 km range sounds pretty strange to me, and reminds me of the swivel guns in AC Black Flag. So I guess we just have to wait and see how WG will handle this. However, it is nice to see they actually care about a premium ship.

[Vanhal]

Ramming speed!

 

It is not a ram, it's characteristical French construction quirk, iirc it was designed to improve seaworthiness and don't obstruct main guns firing.

 

I am rather curious about this implementation, but would not judge too early.

Manual gun control at 3 km range sounds pretty strange to me, and reminds me of the swivel guns in AC Black Flag. So I guess we just have to wait and see how WG will handle this. However, it is nice to see they actually care about a premium ship.

 

It would need improved sniper camera though, the current one is unusable on such distances.

But MIkasa seriously needs a buff. Manual control of secondaries, even on such short range would means basically changing those 3km into deathzone, unless severe nerf to dispersion.

[puxflacet]

It is not a ram, it's characteristical French construction quirk, iirc it was designed to improve seaworthiness and don't obstruct main guns firing.

 

it is ram for sure

 

edit: ah...you were joking? silly me...

[puxflacet]

guys please dont mistake "mixed-caliber main armament" with "secondaries"

[Vanhal]

 

it is ram for sure

 

edit: ah...you were joking? silly me...

 

No, it is inverted bow.

[puxflacet]

 

No, it is inverted bow.

 

These bows were intended for ram. Thats for sure. Because design of these ships was still under influence of Battle of Lissa (1866) and few other encounters...until ww1 naval tacticians still believed that ramming is viable option to knock out enemy ship.

Also take a look at civilian ships from that time - they didnt have inverted bows.

[Procrastes]

Actually, you see the Masséna as she is floating upside down. Those turrets are in fact torpedo launchers of a superior French design, that could be aimed independently even though they were below the water line.

Unfortunately, the recoil from those torpedo launchers all firing at the same time had a tendency to capsize the ship.

Also, the choice to include numerous windows below the water line, to enable the new French fleet to get a really good look at the old French fleet, proved to be a major design flaw.

[puxflacet]

I love these french pre-dreads...They are like from some japanese steampunk anime

[Vanhal]

 

These bows were intended for ram. Thats for sure.

 

Sorry to bust your bubble, but no. French warships had those peculiar version of inverted bow. IT WAS NOT A RAM! Look even at those shipbucket link or any drawing of the underwater part of such ship and you will clearly see that this is not a ram. Next, if you look at other nations warship from that time, they also have inverted bow, but not that extremal.

 

 

Because design of these ships was still under influence of Battle of Lissa (1866) and few other encounters

 

Not by this time. The ram madness endured roughly 20 years. By the time of predreadnoughts it was over already.

 

 

until ww1 naval tacticians still believed that ramming is viable option to knock out enemy ship.

 

Complete absurd. In 1870's it was already noticed that the ramming works mainly on ships that are disabled already, the ramming attack was incredibly easy to avoid. It took few years more to remove rams from projects, but if any captain at the brink of WW1 still though so, i pity his so dead crew.

You may also remember the tiny skirmish at Tsushima that have possibly some minor impact at fleet strategy and construction (/s).

 

 

Also take a look at civilian ships from that time - they didnt have inverted bows.

 

Most of them had straight bow, but in this years a lot of sail ships was still being built.

[Procrastes]

I love these french pre-dreads...They are like from some japanese steampunk anime

 

I agree! They are magnificent!

Let's hope WG adds them to the game at some point. Although they would probably have to have even worse stats than the Mikasa... maybe there could be a special, pre-dreadnought tech tree, with ships that would only see battle with other ships from the same tree?

[puxflacet]

Vanhal, on 07 June 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

...

 

i would love to see any reliable statement about that this bow design was intended becouse of its nautical capability and not for ramming and then i will admit that you are right...

[deadly_if_swallowed]

 

i would love to see any reliable statement about that this bow design was intended becouse of its nautical capability and not for ramming and then i will admit that you are right...

 

This [overweight] caused the ship to sit lower in the water than intended, which partially submerged her armored belt. She was built with a pronounced snout bow to improve her buoyancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Mass%C3%A9na#General_characteristics_and_machinery

[Vanhal]

 

i would love to see any reliable statement about that this bow design was intended becouse of its nautical capability and not for ramming and then i will admit that you are right...

 

Look at the wiki, read any book about the history, look at relevant ships at shibucket, just anything...

[puxflacet]

This [overweight] caused the ship to sit lower in the water than intended, which partially submerged her armored belt. She was built with a pronounced snout bow to improve her buoyancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Mass%C3%A9na#General_characteristics_and_machinery

 

puxflacet, on 07 June 2016 - 12:30 PM, said

i would love to see any reliable statement about that this bow design was intended becouse of its nautical capability and not for ramming and then i will admit that you are right...

surely there are other ways to increase ship buoyance than snout bow (actually massive waves from it were slowing her down)...and i was talking about inverted bows in general not specifically about massenas bow

 

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6613&start=100 

 

Vanhal, on 07 June 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

 Look even at those shipbucket link or any drawing of the underwater part of such ship and you will clearly see that this is not a ram.

the whole shape is a ram just designed to make as less resistance to water as possible. as i said - you will not see this shape on any civilian vessel of that time becouse they were not suppose to ram anything

 

this is how ram from battle of lissa looked like:

 

and this is "just for buoyancy"...

 

Vanhal, on 07 June 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

Complete absurd. In 1870's it was already noticed that the ramming works mainly on ships that are disabled already, the ramming attack was incredibly easy to avoid. It took few years more to remove rams from projects, but if any captain at the brink of WW1 still though so, i pity his so dead crew.

You may also remember the tiny skirmish at Tsushima that have possibly some minor impact at fleet strategy and construction (/s).

google for USS Katahdin (1893) - contemporary of Masséna

also search for HMS Victoria and HMS Camperdown collision these bows were definitely designed for ram

 

i wrote that ramming was considered as viable OPTION...until hms dreadnought the combat distances were below 10km and ships speed max 20knots and close brawl of battleships was still possible - thats why BBs had torpedo tubes...after 25+knots speed and 20+km combat distances noone thought about BB close fight and inverted bows ceased to exist.

[StringWitch]

Apparently inverted bows were used to increase hull speed (if I've interpreted it correctly it should be the speed beyond which the water resistance acting on a ship increases exponentially for a given hull length due to the 'vacuum' of reclosing water left in its wake). In an era where 18 knots was exceptional for a battleship, you could expect they'd try every engineering trick they could. Among later ships, the post-refit Kongo class battleships had exceptionally long and thin 'tails' instead. I don't suppose the stability offered by an inverted bow was always desirable, since it would increase lateral resistance during turns. As far as I know ramming was an option until around 1906 (expected engagement ranges were in the region of 3000 yards), though I think it's more a case of the bow designs of the period happening to serve that purpose than them being retained for that reason. There were however concerns that advances in armour would again outstrip the capability of weapons, as it did when ironclads first came about, ergo ships like HMS Conquerer made a brief appearance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(1881)