Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
This post has been edited 4 times, last edit by "Salaam86" (Dec 23rd 2006, 11:26am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?
Pretty hard to kill this thing.
Quoted
I'm pretty sure that I'd take Lepanto against any historical ship. Getting twice as many shells on target is extremely useful.
Quoted
Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Dec 21st 2006, 7:50pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Korpen
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?
Pretty hard to kill this thing.
Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas.
And i do not think that the freeboard allows B-turret to fire above A turret, judging by other 15" turrets it needs at least 1m more, preferably 2m, so i think it should be simmed as superfiring.
Quoted
Originally posted by Salaam86
Quoted
Originally posted by Korpen
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?
Pretty hard to kill this thing.
Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas.
And i do not think that the freeboard allows B-turret to fire above A turret, judging by other 15" turrets it needs at least 1m more, preferably 2m, so i think it should be simmed as superfiring.
what are you talking about? the belt covers 68% of the length?? and that hasnt changed with the revision either. O_O
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "ShinRa_Inc" (Dec 22nd 2006, 9:22am)
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I would humbly suggest that if you cannot take such criticism in the polite and helpful spirit it's being offered here, this board may not be the place for you to post your designs.
Quoted
Originally posted by Ithekro
It generally helps us learn from our mistakes or the mistakes of others. Or it helps figure our the design lineage.
If the design was still present I'd draw up a rough of it with the belt shown to demontrate the problem. I had the same problem when I was designing ships here and in Navalism. I found that it gave me a lower limit of cover the vitals, but after drawing the vessel found that it really didn't cover everything correctly. I've modified the designs to reflect this, as that was the goal of the design to be fully protected.
Most comments here are attempts to help the design process. Sometimes it seems like everyone is against a design. But after a while either they give up, or the revisions come out for a much superior vessel on at least some level. (Chile's Armored Cruisers and destroyers went through some intensive redesigned and changes here).
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Salaam86" (Dec 23rd 2006, 7:57am)
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Well, that's pretty much the point of posting designs here (or at warships1, or the Warship Design BB, for that matter). To get feedback and input from the members here. Very few (if any) designs get posted here without someone having some manner of criticism or opinion on the design.
I've never felt this criticism to be personal in nature, or intentionally vicious are harmful. This is people commenting on the designs posted based on their own experience and expertise.
I would humbly suggest that if you cannot take such criticism in the polite and helpful spirit it's being offered here, this board may not be the place for you to post your designs.
Quoted
Originally posted by Salaam86
Like Rooijen10 said...what ship on this forum is better at 42,000 or 39,000 tons light.
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Quoted
Originally posted by Salaam86
Like Rooijen10 said...what ship on this forum is better at 42,000 or 39,000 tons light.
I will give it a shot, but since the design no longer appears present, it's a little hard to tell.
DISCLAIMER : From you're post you're disgruntled no one is putting up a comparison, just nit picking. So ok, I'll put up a comparison. Hopefully I can recall your vessel sufficiently. Forgive me if I get something terribly wrong.
WHAT I RECALL :
I believe I saw it briefly but lacked the time to really look at it. Something like 9x15" standard shells, 28kts, 5" deck and 16.5" belt but only 3.5m high and short? Excellent seakeeping and massive range. I don't recall the secondary (was this the 8"?) /tertiary or stuff like barbette thicknesses. Huge floatation, correct?
If I'm way off, then it's all invalid anyhow
As for what is better... always arguable. However my predecessor RAM had his Utrecht. Only 37,158 light, so a bit hard to compare.
Primary : 9x15"- check. Edge Utrecht. RAM specified heavy shells, so better long range deck pen. Utrecht's weakness is barely adequate barbette thickness.
Secondary : Utrecht has 16x 6.1 and 16x100mm- plenty to riddle ends or blanket a foe with HE. Call that a draw.
Speed : Think you had 28, Utrecht had 29, a draw.
Deck : You had 5 " (?), Utrecht has 6". Combine with the heavier shells and Utrecht would be getting deck penetrations while still invulnerable. Edge Utrecht.
Belt : 16.5" vs. Utrecht's inclined 320mm...oh but RAM simmed a 80mm decapping plate as the upper belt. 80mm is actually overkill for a 15" shell, but will strip the cap off and significantly erode penetration. The design would be better as 50+350, but still is sufficiently similar to be a draw. BUT... Utrecht's belt is taller and covers a longer % of hull, meaning a greater protected bouyancy.
Edge Utrecht.
Floatation- you had something huge 100k+...Utrecht has half that- Edge you.
Seakeeping- you had it up to excellent, no? Edge you.
Final : Utrecht a 1924 design, and smaller. Yet she has the same speed, comparable to superior main battery, better deck armor, comparable but more extensive belt armor. Your ship is bigger & harder to sink via ventilation with better seakeeping. But in a beat down, where penetration to the vitals matter... they are (as I recall) close despite Utrecht being older and smaller...and Utrecht is more capable of putting one through your decks into the magazines at range. Advantage : Utrecht.
Lastly, not a nit pick but an observation on the entire bunkerage issue.
Try this :
1) Look at the report for hull % : "Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): " is the listing.
2) Take the main guns off the ship. Look at the % Hull space listed- it drops. Conclusion- guns and magazines take space. Comp hull also skyrockets. Not astonishing.
3) Now, Double the design's bunkerage. Look at the % Hull space listed.
4) Now for Utrecht it went from
with 15" guns : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.2 %
No 15" guns : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %
No 15" guns, range doubled from 10,000nm to 20,000 : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %
Now, to me the final two numbers are the interesting ones. She goes from 3,332 bunkerage to 6,664 bunkerage without a change in internal volume usage. My conclusion- Springsharp doesn't sim fuel tanks well (if at all), and most definitely does not account for them below the waterline.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Salaam86" (Dec 23rd 2006, 11:26am)
Quoted
Like Rooijen10 said...what ship on this forum is better at 42,000 or 39,000 tons light.
Quoted
Now, to me the final two numbers are the interesting ones. She goes from 3,332 bunkerage to 6,664 bunkerage without a change in internal volume usage. My conclusion- Springsharp doesn't sim fuel tanks well (if at all), and most definitely does not account for them below the waterline.
Quoted
No 15" guns, range doubled from 10,000nm to 20,000 : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %
Quoted
I've come to the same conclusion myself, Fuel seems to be drastically underestimated in reguards to its effects on the design hence the birth of wesworld "boilers".
Quoted
Given circumstances. My main belt did cover all the engineering and magazine spaces.
Quoted
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97.5 %
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Dec 23rd 2006, 1:30pm)
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH