Lt_Cdr_Lowe

Royal Navy Tech Tree - The Wishlist

248 posts in this topic

But, implementing this approach allows historical naming accuracy and also avoids people naming their ships in whatever names they can think of e.g. offensive words, slangs, or phrases.

So show me where in the game you can name your Tanks and Planes?

 

Exactly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So show me where in the game you can name your Tanks and Planes?

 

Exactly.

But is different with warships, it has been a long tradition to name warships based on regions, historical personalities and etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is different with warships, it has been a long tradition to name warships based on regions, historical personalities and etc.

This is what you're going to get in game.

 

You pick a ship class, when they see you if it isn't in RB or SB mode, they will see the ship class name. If you want to put a name on your ships they can put in a set of decals to add names or maybe you can unlock ship names to put on it with kills just like you unlock camo schemes.

 

Mind you, I probably know more about Naval warfare than you do, and the naming of ships is dramatically different based on nations and time periods. Due to this, they aren't going to curb to whims, you're going to get the same options as you do in GF and AF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think, when shells are flying at 20,000 yards, that the name of the ship will be in the slightest bit important, as to whether you're sailing HMS Kent or HMAS Australia - the important part is it's a County-class heavy cruiser of the Kent class.

 

In a slightly different vein I do hope they include the London class of the County-class, if they have the post-refit Kent class. Who doesn't want 21" torpedo tubes on their heavy cruiser?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naming this ship for me personally is a trivial thing. If I want to use the Bismarck for instance I want it to be called just that.

Also this whole tier 1-10 facade from that other game needs to be forgotten about. Planes and tanks from the mid thirties are included and I would hazard a guess to say it will follow suite here. So no early dreadnoughts etc, there are plenty of ships or the (hopefully 6) nations to fill a nice enough tree.

I would like to second the idea for individual ships comprising a tree rather than just classes.

Vanguard to be the top battleship ultimately. I wonder more where the cut off point will be.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naming this ship for me personally is a trivial thing. If I want to use the Bismarck for instance I want it to be called just that.

Also this whole tier 1-10 facade from that other game needs to be forgotten about. Planes and tanks from the mid thirties are included and I would hazard a guess to say it will follow suite here. So no early dreadnoughts etc, there are plenty of ships or the (hopefully 6) nations to fill a nice enough tree.

I would like to second the idea for individual ships comprising a tree rather than just classes.

Vanguard to be the top battleship ultimately. I wonder more where the cut off point will be.

From what I gathered from the devs, they are following any non-missile ship up to the Korean war.

 

The issue that has been brought up is what to do with Jet based aircraft as many of the vessels that would get put into higher tiers would have problems dealing with late tier jets, so there is a possibility that certain aircraft could be limited in Naval matches.

 

Many have asked that the latest year available for NF and combined matches to be 1946 due to that fact as Air Power was rapidly pushing beyond ground/naval capacity until the mid to late 50s with the advent of surface to air missiles that were reliable. That would pretty much mean zero jet aircraft for the Naval matches save for possibly the first generation of Sea Vampires which most late war props out performed, the FR-1's which were a US based fighter with a mixed jet/piston design aka it had both a jet engine and a prop.

 

Mind you, these are carrier based aircraft, as for land based ones, we would see the early Japanese designs, the Me 262's, Me 161's, the early meteors, P-59s, P-80s, the Mig-9 and Yak-15. Which would actually make for some interesting aerial fights.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gathered from the devs, they are following any non-missile ship up to the Korean war.

The issue that has been brought up is what to do with Jet based aircraft as many of the vessels that would get put into higher tiers would have problems dealing with late tier jets, so there is a possibility that certain aircraft could be limited in Naval matches.

Many have asked that the latest year available for NF and combined matches to be 1946 due to that fact as Air Power was rapidly pushing beyond ground/naval capacity until the mid to late 50s with the advent of surface to air missiles that were reliable. That would pretty much mean zero jet aircraft for the Naval matches save for possibly the first generation of Sea Vampires which most late war props out performed, the FR-1's which were a US based fighter with a mixed jet/piston design aka it had both a jet engine and a prop.

Mind you, these are carrier based aircraft, as for land based ones, we would see the early Japanese designs, the Me 262's, Me 161's, the early meteors, P-59s, P-80s, the Mig-9 and Yak-15. Which would actually make for some interesting aerial fights.

Makes sense to me as missiles of any kind tend to be a hard line cut off in any of the game theatres thus far.

If we are to assume that jets might be difficult to balance in the higher tiers, would it be better to limit to jets that are carrier based? There's not a huge payload to contend with on many early jets and it would mean no jet bombers which would negate the real scourge. Still there's the problem of adequate defensive mechanisms as you rightly mention. Also potential numbers of jets too. Bit of a headache to balance the high tiers it seems.

Slightly off that topic but if the Vanguard is to be the top BR British battleship, would it be able to hold it's own against the Yamato, Littorio etc? If not then what other options are there? Edited by ItssLuBu
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, you would end up with the 1942-43 version of the Lion as your top tier as the Vanguard really can't even stand up the late game vessels you would see in game mostly due to it's armament being wholly lacking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, you would end up with the 1942-43 version of the Lion as your top tier as the Vanguard really can't even stand up the late game vessels you would see in game mostly due to it's armament being wholly lacking.


I always thought Vanguard to be a decent ship, suprised to hear it would struggle as much. I need to do some reading really and get my head around naval combat, any suggestions?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the guns on Vanguard that make her struggle. They used spare guns lying around to get her built as soon as possible rather than as good as possible. In the end it was entirely unneeded since she was too late to serve during the war and post war only ever did shore bombardment. Which any other 15" armed battleship that survived the war could have done.

 

Basically Yamato and Iowa are going to be performing well above the rest when it comes to final battleship designs. even the paper Lion class would quite a bit to be desired from what I recall. And while there is supposedly a 1944 design of it. There are no blueprints of said design, so wouldn't be possible.

And the 18" Mark II guns of the N3 class were never fired, so no information for them is available to accurately model them. Not to mention that the N3 class being an early 20s design would be very lacking in the AA department. Not to mention quite slow.

 

And that is just the British. I'd hate to think how you'd try to balance Italy let alone the Soviets.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lion class wouldn't be too far off from the Iowa class with the 42-43 variant. Armor wise it's on par, the guns are comparable except it would be firing a lighter shell at 1077kg, but that's a common weight for that shell type. The 42/43 variant did upgrade it's FCS systems to very much alike that of Vanguard, so it would have a damn good FCS system for it's primary and secondary weaponry including AA.

 

They would have had comparable armor, the Lion vs Vanguard that is, except the Lion was basically an enlarged KGV class, maintaining the 15'' belt at magazines and 14'' at machinery and 6'' deck over magazines with 5'' over machinery. The main part that hurt the KGV class was the compromise of armor on the turrets and barbettes, in this case the Lion didn't go as heavy, but it did go up to 15'' on the face and it was a 0 degrees just like the KGV design. The idea was that it would better resist plunging fire into the face and still be capable vs direct fire.

 

So basically what you end up with is a vessel that's a bit in between the South Dakota class and the Iowa class in terms of protection and firepower as well as speed. As for something on par with the Yamato, the only nation that will really have that is the USA with the Montana, not even the Project 23 of the Soviet Union would have held up in a battle line with it due to the issue with Soviet large armor production and the fact that just like the Project 21 vessels, they were going to have to multilayer the armor belt, making it less effective.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps this new match maker will be better, giving more weight to say the Yamato and thus limiting what else it could be teamed up with. Thinking RB wise here.

Rather than going the blueprint route which is always a little, shall we say, controversial.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You reckon the rather 'light' 16" shells of the Lion class would defeat Iowa and Yamato levels of armour at an appreciable combat range? IE, the immunity zones of said vessels aren't as massive as they are for the 15" armed British ships.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based off Nathan Okun's updated penetration calculations, the 2375lbs Mark 2 APC projectile of the Mark II 16''/45 gun would be capable of penetrating the Yamato's belt at 22000 yards and below and the Deck at 33000 yards and above. So it gives the Yamato a wide 10000 yards Immunity zone but it's fully capable of punching holes.

 

Mind you that calculation takes into consideration the lower quality level of the FHA of the belt and the quality of the deck.

 

Against the Nelson, the Yamato would have an Immunity zone from 17000 yards out to 33500 yards.

Against the Vanguard, the Yamato would have an Immunity zone from 19000 yards out to 33300 yards

Against the KGV class, the Yamato would have an Immunity zone from 15000 yards out to 35500 yards

 

So, as you can see, the 16'' gun would give it 3000 yards further range to punch the Yamato's belt, and that's far better than it would have with the Vanguard, the Nelson, and extremely better than the KGV class.

 

Mind you, the Yamato was designed to have an immunity zone against common projectiles of the time from 20km-30km. and the ability to resist it's own shells without 100% immunity within that same range. I would say based off Nathan Okun's updated calculations, they managed just that to be honest. It's actual immunity for it's own shells was around 23-29km, as below and above that had what we call Partial Penetrations, or penetrations where the shells were no longer capable of detonating due to damage to the shell body.

 

The only exception was the Deck armor, as the calculations were initially done with NVNC as the deck, and MNC was actually far better at resisting oblique impacts. Nathan Okun's calculations showed the deck would actually be immune out to 31km. US testing of MNC armor actually agrees with that assessment.

 

The only thing I cannot test, is how the Mark IV gun's projectiles would have fared vs the Yamato, and that's because I haven't ever seen any data on them.

Edited by Azumazi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the calculations say the 18" Mark.I guns would fare? Considering we lack a lot of info on the Mark.II guns. I always reckoned that if the N3 was needed, the Mark.I gun would serve as a decent minimal baseline of performance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4crh APC shells of the 18''/40 Mark 1 guns were nothing more than enlarged Mark 1a 15'' shells, which had cap shatter issues. Going off the 8crh which were more akin to the Mark IIIa Greenboy's, testing showed that they penetrated 18 inches of vertical armor at 15000 yards. Issue is with both of those shells, is that they didn't handle slopes well, anything over 30 degrees and the shell broke up. Britain fixed that issue with their 15'' guns with the Mark 12a, but they too couldn't handle anything over 40 degrees.

 

With that in consideration, they would be forced to attempt long range plunging fire into the decks or 18000 yard range to hit the belt to attempt to reduce slope, because at 18000 yards, those guns still give the shells around 16.5 degrees of drop against a 20 degree belt, meaning it's already nearing 36.5 degrees of impact which could cause the AP Cap to roll into the body.

 

A lot of that has to do with the body filler's depth into the shell, reduced filler with a thicker nose front would have solved that issue, but it would have also reduced the explosive charge. Britain didn't start testing shells like that until the results of the Mark 8 16'' AP shell the USN was using showed great results and they began testing concepts with the Mark IV 16'' gun on the same premise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's mainly shell construction that is the big decider here. I wonder what that means for the French, Germans and Italians.

Very much so to be honest.

 

I had someone ask me once, why is it that Shells like the Greenboy, the Type 91 46cm shell, and some earlier and even later shells had issues with caps destroying the bodies or rotating yet shells in the same period such as the Kwk 36 8.8cm didn't have this issue against say, a 45 degree slope like the above.

 

Pure kinetics and energy force is the reason.

 

Best example. A complete Type 91 46cm shell is 1460kg of mass. Even with the updated design, it still had issues of the cap destroying the body around 50/50 at 45 degree and above angles of impact, although usually it managed a holing but the shell didn't detonate as half the body skidded across the plate and the front half went through. Why is that? At 20km range moving at 521m/s it slams into that plate with 198.192MJ of force.

 

Now, the Pzgr 39 shell of the KwK 36 8.8cm gun weights 10.2kg, and at 1km it's moving at 710m/s. It impacts that plate at 2.571MJ of force. Molecular Physics shows us that thinner plates have more elasticity, better resisting shearing forces. This has been shown in many tests, and even seen as early as 1870 when Naval armor began wide spread. Due to this, the smaller shell better resists the cap shifting on the body and into the body, and as such better resists shell destruction on impact into the armor.

 

So as metallurgy progressed, so did the shell design and techniques to better resist that force of impact from causing damage to the body before it could penetrate the target. This was far easier to achieve with the smaller shells, as causing them to destroy themselves on obliques was nearly non-existent due to the natural resistance to shearing forces.

 

So the 8.8cm shell is 5.2272 times smaller than the 46cm shell, but it's also 143.137 times lighter and exacts less force due to that. At comparable velocities, the 46cm shell hits a target at 367.993MJ of force or 143.132 times the kinetic force. Kinetic force is always multiplied by it's mass and due to this the shear forces involved can literally destroy the object in question.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if someone has already said this, I skimmed the topic and couldn't see her, so here I go. I would be GUTED if HMS invincible wasn't added to the game. She was the first battle cruiser class ship built by any country in the world. End of story, not every ship can say she was truly and indisputably the first of her kind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(1907). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Invincible_(1907)_British_Battleship.jpg. She was ordered 1906 and was commissioned in March of 1909. She paved the way for a new type of warship, and as such I think she has done more than any ship can (short of sinking a nation) to earn a place in her nations tree. I would love to see her as a low BR powerhouse, able to keep pace with all but the fastest, and if commanded well, able to trade blows with the true heavy weights of her time. I would love (trying to) play though her turret refits. * spark with the early turret systems* BOOM!! well, that's my ship rant out of the way, sorry if it's a lot, I'd love to hear what you think.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.