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

SBL: Make Izumo Great Again

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[XTREM]
Players
1,388 posts
9,577 battles
SBL or Ship Builging Lession, today with IZUMO.


SmgGvIekT02rlXg9YIMq4w.png

Why turrets are not placed in this order?
What was problem with draft design so they made it this way? ( Asing for RL) I am not sure deplacement would be any different on this way too?

 

( this is not about IG izumo, but real life draft)

 
Thanks !
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,872 posts
14 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

The forum is eating images again. :Smile_sad:

 

I don't get it either. It should eat potatos.

 

After all it is dietary staple of many EU coutries. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,440 posts
7,771 battles
4 minutes ago, aboomination said:

Izumo's citadel is idiot proof in game. 

FTFY

 

The only thing idiot proof about her armor is that any idiot can damage her with any gun from any angle.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
[UNICS]
Players
5,244 posts
7,934 battles
14 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

FTFY

 

The only thing idiot proof about her armor is that any idiot can damage her with any gun from any angle.

Bull.crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,514 posts
6,365 battles
2 hours ago, Boris_MNE said:
SBL or Ship Builging Lession, today with IZUMO.

Why turrets are not placed in this order?
What was problem with draft design so they made it this way? ( Asing for RL) I am not sure deplacement would be any different on this way too?

 

( this is not about IG izumo, but real life draft)

 
Thanks !

 

Izumos idea was pretty much taken from Nelson class, and as such the project A-140-J2 turrets were all forward facing

Even WG knows this -> http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Izumo if you scroll down to Historical Gallery and check the illustration of the ship - all 3 batteries are forward facing.

Direct link to the illustration -> http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:Линкор_Izumi.png

 

No idea why they had to screw that up and make the 3rd turret borderline unusable by making it rear-facing.

 

As for making Izumo great again - she's one of the best BBs in an AP heavy meta, but struggles right now with all the HE spam. We can just hope the meta will change to something AP focused sooner or later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,388 posts
9,577 battles
47 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

Izumos idea was pretty much taken from Nelson class, and as such the project A-140-J2 turrets were all forward facing

Even WG knows this -> http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Izumo if you scroll down to Historical Gallery and check the illustration of the ship - all 3 batteries are forward facing.

Direct link to the illustration -> http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/File:Линкор_Izumi.png

 

No idea why they had to screw that up and make the 3rd turret borderline unusable by making it rear-facing.

 

As for making Izumo great again - she's one of the best BBs in an AP heavy meta, but struggles right now with all the HE spam. We can just hope the meta will change to something AP focused sooner or later...

 

Thanks!

 

Nothing connected to in game problems, just I was wondering why 3rd turret like that... and not in perfect order  so all 3 can shot bow? 
I mean, in RL exposing anything more than flat bow would only give enemies more chance to hit you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,514 posts
6,365 battles
5 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

Thanks!

 

Nothing connected to in game problems, just I was wondering why 3rd turret like that... and not in perfect order  so all 3 can shot bow? 
I mean, in RL exposing anything more than flat bow would only give enemies more chance to hit you.

 

I think the reasons for the in-game change were there because of 2 reasons:

  • blueprints ship, not actually built, so feel free to change and adjust whatever you need
  • game balance - they game Izumo theoretically better chance to defend herself from the rear (with emphasis on theoretically)

Well, afaik IRL ships actually went broadside to each other, and "crossing the T" was advantageous for the one who's broadside not bow on. Probably something to do with not quite reliable accuracy and the amount of shells you can throw at the enemy :cap_haloween: But with this kind of setup you definitely wouldn't need to expose quite as big of a target to engage the enemy with full main battery strength (or look at Dunkerque - bow on she could bring full firepower)

 

As for 3rd turret being below 2nd - I have actually never seen a ship that had its main batteries in more than 2 levels, it just seems to be a thing that if there will be 3 turrets at least one of them will be in the way of another to fire in the line that they are at. Probably something to do with wight (stability), extra material, increased target profile and all the machinery you'd need to get the shells and all that good stuff up to the turret :cap_yes:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,818 posts
2,546 battles

Seeing as nobody else seems to want to point this out, I'll do it.

 

"Again"? Pretty sure Izumo was never "great" in the first place..

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,448 posts
7,226 battles
2 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Well, afaik IRL ships actually went broadside to each other, and "crossing the T" was advantageous for the one who's broadside not bow on. Probably something to do with not quite reliable accuracy and the amount of shells you can throw at the enemy

 

AFAIK crossing the T was something that was done at fleet level rather than by individual ships, something a bit like this:

 

/  /  /  /  /  \  \  \  \  \

                /

                /

                /

                /

If you think about it one ships against another, then it's obvious that any advantage would last exactly as long as it took to use the rudder.

 

As to why ships went broadside IRL, I'd guess there are several reasons:

  • bring all guns to bear;
  • IRL the shell disperson was more of a vertical elipse rather than the horizontal one in game, thus you're more likely to be hit going bow in.
  • important to maintain distance to the enemy so that your armour remainied in the zone of immunity;
  • biggest fear for BB captains would be losing fighting capacity through damage to guns and command and control systems, angling provides no protection against this;
  • IRL BB were designed to be immune to citadel hits thus going broadside is not the risk it is in game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
113 posts
9,039 battles
4 hours ago, Boris_MNE said:

 

Thanks!

 

Nothing connected to in game problems, just I was wondering why 3rd turret like that... and not in perfect order  so all 3 can shot bow? 
I mean, in RL exposing anything more than flat bow would only give enemies more chance to hit you.

Problem with putting stuff up or high, especially the super heavy sections, like the turret/barbette and the whole mechanism, is that it affects metacentric height on the ship and thus the stability of the vessel (the higher the center of gravity, the smaller the metacentric height = the more unstable the ship is). They had issues with Atago stability already due to narrowness of the ship and the height of it's superstructure, I guess it could be one of reasons (not that stability is a thing in the game, or the rate of turn of ships for that matter).

On the other hand, it's a completely retarded design, which should be classified as a flaw, not a feature.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,172 posts
4,314 battles
1 hour ago, Capra76 said:

 

As to why ships went broadside IRL, I'd guess there are several reasons:

  • bring all guns to bear;
  • IRL the shell disperson was more of a vertical elipse rather than the horizontal one in game, thus you're more likely to be hit going bow in.
  • important to maintain distance to the enemy so that your armour remainied in the zone of immunity;
  • biggest fear for BB captains would be losing fighting capacity through damage to guns and command and control systems, angling provides no protection against this;
  • IRL BB were designed to be immune to citadel hits thus going broadside is not the risk it is in game.

IRL, hit rates were in the lower single digit percentages and a hit in the citadel would only blow up the ship if it actually hit your magazines. If it just hits your machinery compartment, it might knock out some boilers and you'd be stuck limping back to port to get it fixed (instead of eating full shell damage). If you consider the "crossing the T", the advantage is not how much target one offers, but indeed that the side that crosses the T can apply all its guns on one single closest ship, while the other side has to apply only its forward-facing guns and the last few ships in the line have to fire at far longer ranges than any ship of the side with the advantage. If they can fire at all.

 

Of course if you consider the older examples of Crossing the T, ships of the line had pretty much all their gunpower at their broadside and pre-dreadnoughts like at Tsushima don't rely on devastating citadel hits, but on spamming the enemy to death with all their guns, slowly degrading them, most of their guns being the secondaries (if you look at the Mikasa, you can guess that having only the forward facing 305 mm twin turret is a pitiful amount of firepower, compared to two 305 mm guns and the whole array of secondaries in side.mounted barbettes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LOBUZ]
[LOBUZ]
Players
4,217 posts
15,454 battles

There's a common misconception about crossing the T. Crossing the T was never about shooting full broadside against forward guns only. It was all about whole fleet being able to focus fire one ship while other enemy ships having limited possibility to shoot back. Crossing the T is all about fleet tactics and has nothing to do with turret placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles

In terms of real-life, having turrets in the same arrangement as the in-game Izumo minimises the length required for the main battery magazines as the three barbettes are very close together, which in turn reduces the length required for the armoured citadel, which creates then a more weight efficient design as less area has to be armoured.

3 hours ago, Capra76 said:

If you think about it one ships against another, then it's obvious that any advantage would last exactly as long as it took to use the rudder.

 

 

Which, historically, was actually quite a long time. Remember that ships in-game move many, many times faster than their speeds suggest, IRL a ship would have to endure a few salvos before it could unmask it's rear turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,575 posts
3,385 battles

it is so obvious that i wonder why that didnt struck me ever before. both front turrets have raised barbettes for no reason and since the very front turret is one deck lower already, your solution is probably what every ship designer would do. 

 

100% agree and should be fixed

 

On 24. 12. 2017 at 9:23 PM, Chicha_Drazza said:

Problem with putting stuff up or high, especially the super heavy sections, like the turret/barbette and the whole mechanism, is that it affects metacentric height on the ship and thus the stability of the vessel (the higher the center of gravity, the smaller the metacentric height = the more unstable the ship is). They had issues with Atago stability already due to narrowness of the ship and the height of it's superstructure, I guess it could be one of reasons (not that stability is a thing in the game, or the rate of turn of ships for that matter).

On the other hand, it's a completely retarded design, which should be classified as a flaw, not a feature.

 

notice that this arragement would not affect the stability at all because he is not raising any of the turrets above the current most height. actually i believe that irl they would be ok with third turret on same level as second turret but certainly turrets A and B would be one deck lower which would bring the balance point even lower

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
7,871 posts
11,295 battles

I made a thread about this on the BB section awhile back.

 

Playing Nelson makes you realise how strong 3 forward facing turrets would be.

 

Maybe some day WG...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,057 posts
7,669 battles
On 24.12.2017 at 2:29 PM, Nechrom said:

FTFY

 

The only thing idiot proof about her armor is that any idiot can damage her with any gun from any angle.

That's with HE shells of IFHE cruiser caliber and above.  Izumo is fairly tanky against AP when angled. Turrets and citadel are well armored, but hitting Izumo anywhere else with HE is gonna pen and do damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
113 posts
9,039 battles
On 28/12/2017 at 9:53 PM, puxflacet said:

it is so obvious that i wonder why that didnt struck me ever before. both front turrets has raised barbettes for no reason and since the very front turret is one deck lower already, your solution is probably what every ship designer would do. 

 

100% agree and should be fixed

 

 

notice that this arragement would not affect the stability at all because he is not raising any of the turrets above the current most height. actually i believe that irl they would be ok with third turret on same level as second turret but certainly turrets A and B would be one deck lower which would bring the balance point even lower

 


Sorry, but placing third turret at same height as the second one would have same result as having it as it is now. It would still be blocked. Try to imagine having them same level as the 2nd one is already elevated.
And also, you're wrong about the effect of elevation of turret on stability.
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=metacentric+height+ship&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The more weight you add at higher points on the vessel, the higher your vessel's center of gravity will go - It will come closer to the height of Metacenter point (usually a bit higher than the top point of the vessel). It is one of the main reasons almost every ship has ballast tanks. Container ships, Car Carriers and timber ships have this issue most characteristically.
Another effect that comes with the heightened center of gravity (putting stuff higher) is the righting moment, and this is also terrible for ships - low metacentric height causes your ship to create that slow swinging as it lists or rolls due to waves or hard turns, and it lasts long. If you make center of gravity too low it will make metacentric height huge and the righting moment will go berserk, with near violent jerking as the ship tries to upright herself. This is what they have on those sailing trimarans and what's their name that have that keel part deep in the water - they can sail with almost 90 degrees list and still easily come back to upright state within moments depending on the crew.

 

On 28/12/2017 at 10:28 PM, Negativvv said:

I made a thread about this on the BB section awhile back.

 

Playing Nelson makes you realise how strong 3 forward facing turrets would be.

 

Maybe some day WG...

STRONG. Wish same thing could even remotely be applied to Izumo. For some reason, Dunkerque has no such effect, and his situation on paper should be even better - 2 turrets, without almost any dead angle (except when trying to shoot behind your beam or further). There are weaknesses with forward placement, and that's what makes Nelson satisfying to play (along with that 25k hp heal :D and derpiness). 
Best part on Nelson for me is the turret traverse. This is absolutely the main reason for me to enjoy - you can deal with enemies and respond quite quickly, it's almost cruiser response times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOR]
Beta Tester
1,757 posts
6,352 battles
On 24.12.2017 at 4:39 PM, Boris_MNE said:

 

Thanks!

 

Nothing connected to in game problems, just I was wondering why 3rd turret like that... and not in perfect order  so all 3 can shot bow? 
I mean, in RL exposing anything more than flat bow would only give enemies more chance to hit you.

 

Creating such a high barbette would make the ship excessively top heavy, add a lot of useless weight, expose more of the important mechanics of the gun and shell hoists.

 

Read about Richelieu and Dunkerque and youll find that captains preferred to fire broadside rather than bow in despite all the guns facing forward. There are many reasons for this.

 

 

In terms of ways to "fix" Izumo this might be one of the worst ive ever seen.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,590 battles
3 hours ago, Chicha_Drazza said:

And also, you're wrong about the effect of elevation of turret on stability.
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=metacentric+height+ship&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The more weight you add at higher points on the vessel (...)

While I don't really care about Izumo Turret placement (I'm not sure what I'm doing in this thread) you clearly didn't understand what puxflacet said. No proposition here involves putting overall weight of the turrets higher than now - just the opposite, in fact!

 

In the in-game ship we could select three levels:

0 (bow deck level) - 0 turrets

1 (middle deck lever) - 2 turrets (#1 & #3)

2 (elevated above midship deck) - 1 turret (#2)

 

The alternative presented by OP moves one of the level 1 turrets to level 0 (the front turret gets lowered) and switches the height of turrets #2 and #3. You end up with:

 

0 (bow deck level) - 1 turret (#1)

1 (middle deck lever) - 1 turrets (#2)

2 (elevated above midship deck) - 1 turret (#3)

 

The result is that ship is LESS top-heavy, not more.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
113 posts
9,039 battles
4 hours ago, eliastion said:

While I don't really care about Izumo Turret placement (I'm not sure what I'm doing in this thread) you clearly didn't understand what puxflacet said. No proposition here involves putting overall weight of the turrets higher than now - just the opposite, in fact!

 

In the in-game ship we could select three levels:

0 (bow deck level) - 0 turrets

1 (middle deck lever) - 2 turrets (#1 & #3)

2 (elevated above midship deck) - 1 turret (#2)

 

The alternative presented by OP moves one of the level 1 turrets to level 0 (the front turret gets lowered) and switches the height of turrets #2 and #3. You end up with:

 

0 (bow deck level) - 1 turret (#1)

1 (middle deck lever) - 1 turrets (#2)

2 (elevated above midship deck) - 1 turret (#3)

 

The result is that ship is LESS top-heavy, not more.

That's wrong mate, not trying to argue but look:
Front one (no.1), is slightly elevated, with barbette sticking out of the deck.
Middle one(no.2), with huge tall barbette is excessively high already.

Aftermost one(no.3), almost has no barbette showing above it's deck. 

Problem with this is - if you lower the No.1, it will have serious - probably zero - chances of shooting targets infront of izumo under 10-12km or so...
The bow deck of Izumo, is pretty elevated, so either WG shaves off a few meters of forward hull/deck, or straight up ignores it and does that with the turret and makes it have blind angle forward - ridiculous btw.
Then, you have to lower the No.2 by some tiny margin - because that's how much you will actually get from lowering No.1. Now, No.2 and No.3 will be almost same level - with No.2 still blocking No.3. So, now you need to elevate No.3 - much more than you actually lowered No.2/No.1.
It just doesn't work - instead of having one open barbette, now you'd have 2 massive exposed barbettes and overall higher placement of weight (not that stability has anything to do with the game...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,388 posts
9,577 battles
5 hours ago, Affeks said:

 

Creating such a high barbette would make the ship excessively top heavy, add a lot of useless weight, expose more of the important mechanics of the gun and shell hoists.

 

Read about Richelieu and Dunkerque and youll find that captains preferred to fire broadside rather than bow in despite all the guns facing forward. There are many reasons for this.

 

 

In terms of ways to "fix" Izumo this might be one of the worst ive ever seen.

 

 

This became strange mix of real life and game problems.


I was asking for real life and thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
3,886 posts
16,255 battles
On 12/24/2017 at 6:33 PM, lafeel said:

Seeing as nobody else seems to want to point this out, I'll do it.

 

"Again"? Pretty sure Izumo was never "great" in the first place..

Fuk Yeah Papership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×