GrandMoffTano

Ship Tree Speculation

3 hours ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

kgv armament had nothing to do with restrictions and what they lack in penetration they have in knock out power. And no we sunk the Bismark. No scuttled about it.

The KGV was completely held back by treaty restrictions.

That's why HMS Vanguard went back to using 15" guns

And why her weight is as close to 35,000 tons as possible

 

4 minutes ago, bellezza03 said:

Littorio battleships where superior to bismarck and Kgv in both armor and firepower. Bismarck would have better chances against the Littorio, Kgv would be literally blown up at range. The guns on the KGV could pierce littorio belt at only 3500 meters....  381/50 guns pierced 380 mm of armor at 28 km and 510 at 18 km ( could easily go trought yamato main belt at this range). Kgv stands no chance. Hilariusly the better gun ( aside the 406 mm that could do this 1000 yards further) that royal navy had to pierce littorio belt was the 381 mm of the QE class that could pierce littorio main belt at 10000 meters ( that it's a short range engagement). Littorio battleship can rival the Iowa in terms of armor and guns. The Yamato it's on her own class..... and yes bismarck was scuttled. Ballards spedition found clear signs of auto siking and he found only 3 hits on the main belt ( all of them over the waterline ). all those 3 shells where 406 mm , 2 pierced the other bounched off..... the Royal navy gunnery primarly aimed for main turrets and the citadel to do reach the best results in terms of killing the crew. The royal navy can easily say, we stopped the bismarck, and we put her KO.  But she reached the grave by herself.

The 14" British guns had 15.6" of penetration at 10,000 yards. More than enough to pen it, even though they were admittedly crappy guns.

But the Italian guns were not so great either.

Slow to load, poor quality shells, lack of radar, and too high muzzle velocity made them average at best.

I wouldn't put the Littorio on the level of the Iowa. The 16" guns were just miles ahead.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

The 14" British guns had 15.6" of penetration at 10,000 yards. More than enough to pen it, even though they were admittedly crappy guns.

But the Italian guns were not so great either.

Slow to load, poor quality shells, lack of radar, and too high muzzle velocity made them average at best.

I wouldn't put the Littorio on the level of the Iowa. The 16" guns were just miles ahead.

yo missed something

Littorio class 381/50 guns

0 meters: 814 mm

18000 meters: 510 mm ( 121 mm more than the british most powerful gun)

28000 meters: 380 mm ( basically it's the same amount of what the KGV pierce at 9 km....) 

 

side armor penetration is more than good, while deck penetration wasn't great both ship and gun were designed for medium range combat.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, arczer25 said:

yo missed something

Littorio class 381/50 guns

0 meters: 814 mm

18000 meters: 510 mm ( 121 mm more than the british most powerful gun)

28000 meters: 380 mm ( basically it's the same amount of what the KGV pierce at 9 km....) 

 

side armor penetration is more than good, while deck penetration wasn't great both ship and gun were designed for medium range combat.

Yeah, the penetration is great, but it came at the cost of every other aspect of the gun being sub par

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Yeah, the penetration is great, but it came at the cost of every other aspect of the gun being sub par

only bad aspect of that guns is low rate of fire 1.3RPM, dispersion problems were due to projectiles quality issues but that was fixed.

British guns also didn't had best rate of fire with 2RPM for 14" and 15" and 1.5RPM for 16"

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

only bad aspect of that guns is low rate of fire 1.3RPM, dispersion problems were due to projectiles quality issues but that was fixed.

British guns also didn't had best rate of fire with 2RPM for 14" and 15" and 1.5RPM for 16"

iluminas sends his greets

the Bismarck on the other hand

2.4rpm

18km  442mm pen

and an dispersion of only 104m at 18km

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

The KGV was completely held back by treaty restrictions.

That's why HMS Vanguard went back to using 15" guns

And why her weight is as close to 35,000 tons as possible

 

The 14" British guns had 15.6" of penetration at 10,000 yards. More than enough to pen it, even though they were admittedly crappy guns.

But the Italian guns were not so great either.

Slow to load, poor quality shells, lack of radar, and too high muzzle velocity made them average at best.

I wouldn't put the Littorio on the level of the Iowa. The 16" guns were just miles ahead.

you need 450 mm fully pierce all the layers on the Littorio main belt...., or if you like it more 17.7 Inch. This was claimed by Azumazi in one of his post where i asked it about the proetection of the Littorio main belt that was projected to stop 16 inch shells. Also poor quality shells where there cause italian industry poor quality controls. But littorio fired also good salvos during her carrier. Lack of radar.... i'm laughing sooooooo hard. EC3 ter GUFO radar would like to have a word with you. Littorio class had radar since 1941. Muzzle velocity was not a problem but a quality. They needed not too much elevation and the flat trajectory was really good at hitting the main belts of the ships. Also it gave to the Littorio the enormous range of 42800 meters with AP shells.... wich is the best of all the battleships

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

only bad aspect of that guns is low rate of fire 1.3RPM, dispersion problems were due to projectiles quality issues but that was fixed.

British guns also didn't had best rate of fire with 2RPM for 14" and 15" and 1.5RPM for 16"

And the lack of a radar based FCS, and I don't believe the quality issue for the shells was fixed.

Not that I can find at least.

I'll have to look up a source, but I remember reading that they were some of the least accurate battleship guns of the war.

Don't quote me on it though.

 

2rpm is quite standard for a battleship

 

3 minutes ago, bellezza03 said:

you need 450 mm fully pierce all the layers on the Littorio main belt...., or if you like it more 17.7 Inch. This was claimed by Azumazi in one of his post where i asked it about the proetection of the Littorio main belt that was projected to stop 16 inch shells. Also poor quality shells where there cause italian industry poor quality controls. But littorio fired also good salvos during her carrier. Lack of radar.... i'm laughing sooooooo hard. EC3 ter GUFO radar would like to have a word with you. Littorio class had radar since 1941. Muzzle velocity was not a problem but a quality. They needed not too much elevation and the flat trajectory was really good at hitting the main belts of the ships. Also it gave to the Littorio the enormous range of 42800 meters with AP shells.... wich is the best of all the battleships

I'll have to ask him about that next time he's around then.

Gufo was a search radar, not a FCS radar, which means all aiming had to be done manually, which was a significant drawback.

The problem with using a very high velocity cannon, is that as long range, you lack the proper trajectory to properly penetrate the deck armour, and no belt is going to be penetrated at such an angle, so it's an awkward place.

Though Mediterranean battles, so longest range doesn't matter all that much. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

iluminas sends his greets

the Bismarck on the other hand

2.4rpm

18km  442mm pen

and an dispersion of only 104m at 18km

 

that RPM i don't know why was never even closely matched by the Bismarck that barely did 1 RPM against the Hood.....

about accuracy Bagnano helps me:

<br/><a  data-cke-saved-href="http://oi63.tinypic.com/2n0o7pv.jpg" href="http://oi63.tinypic.com/2n0o7pv.jpg" target="_blank">View Raw Image</a>

3.7 % of hitting a target at 22500 meters it's not bad at all. Iowa had 2% at 27 km. Deviation it's kinda good with good quality salvo, as you can see 17 km 185 meters. Bad with bad shells.... it really depends. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about what he said

Against the Mark VII 14'' guns, nearly outright immune at all ranges. They would have to close to under 4000 yards to effectively penetrate the full belt. The Italians knew this and designed the armor scheme to reflect immunity to the common sized battleship armament fielded by most navies which was around 14'' due to the Washington Naval Treaty setting a limit on the 16'' armed vessels and the replacement vessels to be armed with 14'' guns. That's also not to include the fact the majority of Japanese and US vessels were armed with 14'' guns, leaving only Britain with the majority of her fleet armed with 15''. Even with the 15'' guns, they would have to close to under 9000 yards to effectively penetrate the belt. So overall against the common AP projectiles of the day, it was a good design.

 

As for the Rodney/Nelson's Mark 1B 16'' guns, she has to close under 11000 yards to punch through both layers, and that's if she doesn't naval limit which means it penetrates but breaks up post penetration once it gets past that inner belt which is possible. The main issue with the Mark 1B's is that they were light, 929kg to be exact, which they designed hoping to increase the rate of fire of their guns. In practice however it was found that the design was overly complicated and actually reduced fire to under that of the Mark I 15'' guns in common use. They also found it led to excessive wear with it's designed muzzle velocity so they reduced it to save on barrel wear. To be honest, the Italian 15'' guns also suffered from excessive barrel wear due to it's high velocity.

17 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

iluminas sends his greets

Edited by bellezza03
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

And the lack of a radar based FCS, and I don't believe the quality issue for the shells was fixed.

Not that I can find at least.

I'll have to look up a source, but I remember reading that they were some of the least accurate battleship guns of the war.

Don't quote me on it though.

radar based FCS is helping in bad weather/night conditions and based on advancement of FCS in other areas (not all are similar best goes to US in term of combined FCS).

Littorio radar had limited FCS.

ammo quality varied from batch to batch, later they used primarily better quality ones.

 

6 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

I'll have to ask him about that next time he's around then.

Gufo was a search radar, not a FCS radar, which means all aiming had to be done manually, which was a significant drawback.

The problem with using a very high velocity cannon, is that as long range, you lack the proper trajectory to properly penetrate the deck armour, and no belt is going to be penetrated at such an angle, so it's an awkward place.

Though Mediterranean battles, so longest range doesn't matter all that much. 

again ship and gun were optimized from medium large ranges of Mediterranean, it radar had limited FCS properties (give only range) and other thing is FCS radar don't affect ballistic analog computer with can get required data from optic FCS (of course limited in night/bad weather conditions.)

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also meditterean battles where often fought at range. Littorio used to open fire at 29/30 km where the armor was fully immune anything.  Then the range was closed up to 20 km where the Littorio armor was still immune at anything and they had the enaught accuracy to hit something. About the FCS arczer said pretty much all

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

radar based FCS is helping in bad weather/night conditions and based on advancement of FCS in other areas (not all are similar best goes to US in term of combined FCS).

Littorio radar had limited FCS.

ammo quality varied from batch to batch, later they used primarily better quality ones.

 

again ship and gun were optimized from medium large ranges of Mediterranean, it radar had limited FCS properties (give only range) and other thing is FCS radar don't affect ballistic analog computer with can get required data from optic FCS (of course limited in night/bad weather conditions.)

 

On the other hand the RN could fight at night and they proved their ability to do so several times.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tizianenel said:

Does any Japanese boat use Long Lance torpedoes?

 

I've only heard of that massive torpedo being used on Destroyers and above.

I don't know. However, destroyers have been stated as the currently planned top-tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ghost_Rider12 said:

 

On the other hand the RN could fight at night and they proved their ability to do so several times.

any ship could do that if have search radar (Japan had hard lesson with that), Scharnhorst did that until enemy blown up radar antenna, still it in worse situation than ship with full radar FCS.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bellezza03 said:

about what he said

Against the Mark VII 14'' guns, nearly outright immune at all ranges. They would have to close to under 4000 yards to effectively penetrate the full belt. The Italians knew this and designed the armor scheme to reflect immunity to the common sized battleship armament fielded by most navies which was around 14'' due to the Washington Naval Treaty setting a limit on the 16'' armed vessels and the replacement vessels to be armed with 14'' guns. That's also not to include the fact the majority of Japanese and US vessels were armed with 14'' guns, leaving only Britain with the majority of her fleet armed with 15''. Even with the 15'' guns, they would have to close to under 9000 yards to effectively penetrate the belt. So overall against the common AP projectiles of the day, it was a good design.

 

As for the Rodney/Nelson's Mark 1B 16'' guns, she has to close under 11000 yards to punch through both layers, and that's if she doesn't naval limit which means it penetrates but breaks up post penetration once it gets past that inner belt which is possible. The main issue with the Mark 1B's is that they were light, 929kg to be exact, which they designed hoping to increase the rate of fire of their guns. In practice however it was found that the design was overly complicated and actually reduced fire to under that of the Mark I 15'' guns in common use. They also found it led to excessive wear with it's designed muzzle velocity so they reduced it to save on barrel wear. To be honest, the Italian 15'' guns also suffered from excessive barrel wear due to it's high velocity.

Well I wouldn't expect British guns to be too crash hot against in really.

But I wouldn't put it against an Iowa either.

 

14 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

radar based FCS is helping in bad weather/night conditions and based on advancement of FCS in other areas (not all are similar best goes to US in term of combined FCS).

Littorio radar had limited FCS.

ammo quality varied from batch to batch, later they used primarily better quality ones.

 

again ship and gun were optimized from medium large ranges of Mediterranean, it radar had limited FCS properties (give only range) and other thing is FCS radar don't affect ballistic analog computer with can get required data from optic FCS (of course limited in night/bad weather conditions.)

Just having a search radar doesn't provide much benefit to your fire control.

They aren't very accurate, and would only show the target within a few degrees, where as FCS radar needed to be about 1 degree of accuracy.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Just having a search radar doesn't provide much benefit to your fire control.

They aren't very accurate, and would only show the target within a few degrees, where as FCS radar needed to be about 1 degree of accuracy.

even using optical FCS you can still fight enemy in night (search-lights, illuminating rounds and even moon light is enough) search radar allows to localize enemy with is much harder.

second battle of Guadalcanal, Japan didn't had any form of radar in that time, they were unable to detect ships, but still could fire at it once they localized it.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

even using optical FCS you can still fight enemy in night (search-lights, illuminating rounds and even moon light is enough) search radar allows to localize enemy with is much harder.

second battle of Guadalcanal, Japan didn't had any form of radar in that time, they were unable to detect ships, but still could fire at it once they localized it.

Guadalcanal was a knife fight by all accounts, and the Japanese were punished hard for their lack of radar.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SeraphsWrath said:

I don't know. However, destroyers have been stated as the currently planned top-tier.

 

Not true. They are only a possibility, and not even in same game mode.

 

"Player-controlled destroyers and other large ships may appear later, in other gamemodes, it will be decided based on results of closed beta."

 

Keeping in mind that Gaijin, not the playerbase, determines what the results are.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Guadalcanal was a knife fight by all accounts, and the Japanese were punished hard for their lack of radar.

still they were able to fight, Sounth Dakota received quite punishment.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

still they were able to fight, Sounth Dakota received quite punishment.

Barely.

The Washington got to under 10km without even being noticed before blasting the Kirishima

If the Japanese had radar, they could have spotted her well in advance, and adjusted accordingly

South Dakota was also without her radar and radio during the fight.

 

Not the mention the blunder that was the first battle of guadalcanal..

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Barely.

The Washington got to under 10km without even being noticed before blasting the Kirishima

If the Japanese had radar, they could have spotted her well in advance, and adjusted accordingly

South Dakota was also without her radar and radio during the fight.

 

Not the mention the blunder that was the first battle of guadalcanal..

And second with the loss of USS Atlanta which received fire from both sides.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Barely.

The Washington got to under 10km without even being noticed before blasting the Kirishima

If the Japanese had radar, they could have spotted her well in advance, and adjusted accordingly

South Dakota was also without her radar and radio during the fight.

 

Not the mention the blunder that was the first battle of guadalcanal..

South Dakota switchboard malfunction was recorded at 23.40, with is already 40min of battle

 

US BB force with Kirishma task force was 2 naval battle of Guadalcanal, 1 battle was US cruiser task group.

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jean Bart would be an interesting Premium BB.

Jean_Bart_damaged_01.jpg

2x4 15" Guns and incomplete when the US landed at Casablanca during Operation Torch.

 

She was completed, with a full armament of 2x4 15" guns, 9x 152mm Dual-Purpose guns located aft in triple turrets, 8 40mm Bofors and 20x 20mm Cannons.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.