What about citadel shots?
Ask An Expert- Battleships
- Thread starter zraver
- Start date
What about citadel shots?
just something made up for the game.
There is such thing as an armored citadel on a bBattleship, but there's no such term as a "citadel shot".
What about over-penetration?
That happened. AP shells would go all the way through un-armored or lightly-armored targets and either not explode or explode harmlessly in the sea.
FlankDestroyer
New member
Not much help here but the Midway class carriers with similar/identical turbines (53,000 HP each) and probably the same boilers produced about a max of 153,000 pounds of steam an hour. Fuel usage was about 1,475 gallons/hour at full load. The NSFO fuel used when these ships were built had about 5% more energy than the clean burning NATO F-76 fuels (also called DFM) used starting about 1970ish.
Send a note to B&W they are still around? They produced over 50% of the boilers in WWII.
Last edited:
JCT
New member
I'd have to disagree with the bit about the fires. While I don't know if uncontrolled fires materially contributed to the sinking of any battleships in WW2, they could be a significant and/or contributing factor. Probably the wildest close-range fight between battleships and smaller cruisers and destroyers (and probably most similar to what you might see in WoW) was the naval battle on the night of 12-13 November between IJN battleships Hiei, Kirishima and their support warships against a USN task force led by Adm Callaghan (followed by a second fight the night after.) The Combined Fleet website has a good account of the Hiei's loss, deriving the information from both US and Japanese sources. Fires were not the primary source of the Hiei's loss, however uncontrolled fires did sink many other ships and Lexington comes immediately to mind. Fire is acknowledged as one of the greater threats to ships and is reflected in how much damage control training is fire related. Warships tend to have lots of stuff that likes to explode when exposed to fire.
G
Guest
Guest
I know its a game but maybe someone could tell me. Why does the Iowa only have a torpedo damage reduction of 27% compared to the IJN amagi's 42%. I thought Iowa had a pretty decent torpedo protection system
You answer was in the first sentence. "It's a game".
I suspect that the designers have a bit of bias against US ships. The US Battleships in-game should be much more accurate than they are, and their secondaries should have a lot longer range. But again, it's a game not a simulation, so they had to try and make each ship have strengths and weaknesses for balance.
It doesn't at all represent how things were in real life....other than the modeling. That is fantastic.
FlankDestroyer
New member
This is a good read about Battleship designs from some naval historians. Not sure if it has been posted before?
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
The Germans made a comprehensive test with the target ship Hessen in 1937
3 destroyers were set as attackers at very short and favourable distances of 2,5 km - 2,7 km they achieved about 200 hits of 12,7 cm in very short time against the target ship.
Its fighting capabilities had been strongly reduced by splinterdamage and direkt hits against sensors, firecontrol facitlities, Flaks, machineweapons, ready ammunition, personellel, not armored parts of the ship, funnels and so on.
But anything befind usual captitalship armor was unharrassed.
Fire was absolutely no problem.
Conclusion the target ships was never in danger, loosing ist seekeeping capabilities speed and maneuverability but should have had problems with ist fighting capabilities.
Uhh. By no means anything near a objektive comparision.
(Sorry for double post I have no edit button)
JCT
New member
Of course, the BB wasn't fighting back, that tends to disrupt one's aim when your own ship is wildly manuevering and radically making course and speed adjustments.
Yes, the designers are Russian, so good possibility that there is some bias there, but I'm pretty biased myself and have mostly read US sourced material on these ships. It was a fun game, but the slow leveling requirements drove me nuts. Premium accounts were very expensive and you had to constantly renew them - not affordable for me.
You can buy a premium tier 8 BB for $50 and skip all the leveling.
Another that I'm not sure is historically accurate is the arm time on their torpedoes. A DD, which can stay afloat after eating 5 15inch shells from my BB, can just run up to me and launch 2 spreads of torpedoes almost at point blank range and kill me.
JCT
New member
Yes, but that's only one ship, I enjoyed playing multiple types - which probably contributed to my frustration with the slow leveling.
The map scale is off compared to the size of the ships, you'd almost have to be touching to be within 500 yds, which if memory serves is the arming distance for some torpedos. But I wouldn't have put it past the game designers to fudge this. I played an Android game, similar to WoW, and on a couple of occasions came within feet of an opposing BB, loosed a spread of torpedos, watched them hit, but nothing happen. They definitely modeled arming limitations! It definitely was a kick in the crotch to work your way that close and then have your torpedos not go off.
Dan_Bickell
New member
I've been playing World of Warships for years, and happen to have been a game developer for decades, and while this particular game is plenty of fun, it isn't anywhere near accurate in numerous ways.
The scale of the ships compared to each other and the world is quite fudged, to better balance the size of targets at range. The scale of speed and maneuverability is very fudged, to speed up the pace of the game. The scale of artillery range is quite shortened, so that high tier BBs can't immediately fire all the way across the environments, and because trying to visually lead aim for up to 90 second shell flight times wouldn't be fun or past-paced enough. Everything about the game is about balancing the play experience to be relatively fast-paced and fun, as opposed to an accurate simulation.
When I used to work on the Call of Duty games, there were lots of arguments about historical accuracy and game mechanics, and the winning arguments were always for keeping it fun over accurate. When it comes to subjects such as the rate of fire on weapons, accurate rates could be absolutely game breaking, so instead we would find what works, and then adjust the rates of fire between weapons to be representational of their differences, rather than accurate simulations.
They have to be able to take historical ships and make them fit into their various game mechanics, such as upgrade paths. In some ways, they can work actual historical upgrades and refits into account, such as the Iowa class starting out with the original open bridge, and eventually ending up with the enclosed bridge, or starting out with the SK radar, and eventually getting the SK-2, and they representationally upgrade the the stats of the ships along with it. The AA configurations change as well, but never quite as the ships actually had at any given point, because they have to balance the ships for their respective tiers and what they will face. So, they substitute dual-Bofors 40mm mounts where they should be quad mounts, and add or remove 20mm Oerlikons as needed. They throw in powerplant upgrades with no historical basis where needed. They make up upgrades that change rudder-shift times and turret traverse times, that have zero historical basis, but allow for a fun level of customization to make ships better suit an individual's play style. You can configure an Iowa-class to be a "stealth Iowa", with lower detectability, if desired, and hold your fire and sneak up on the enemy flank and surprise them with a close-quarters brawl. There is absolutely nothing realistic about that, but it sure can be fun!
I think World of Warships actually does a pretty fine job of balancing things, from the perspective of a game developer. Even then, the players still often gripe about the inevitable finer points of balancing, and the perceived biases of the developer. I think they do a pretty good job of making the game mechanics actually work, and giving a certain "feel" and play style to USN BBs as opposed to IJN BBs, for example, that might be representational of the actual history in certain ways, without going overboard with realism that would take all the fun out of it.
The scale of the ships compared to each other and the world is quite fudged, to better balance the size of targets at range. The scale of speed and maneuverability is very fudged, to speed up the pace of the game. The scale of artillery range is quite shortened, so that high tier BBs can't immediately fire all the way across the environments, and because trying to visually lead aim for up to 90 second shell flight times wouldn't be fun or past-paced enough. Everything about the game is about balancing the play experience to be relatively fast-paced and fun, as opposed to an accurate simulation.
When I used to work on the Call of Duty games, there were lots of arguments about historical accuracy and game mechanics, and the winning arguments were always for keeping it fun over accurate. When it comes to subjects such as the rate of fire on weapons, accurate rates could be absolutely game breaking, so instead we would find what works, and then adjust the rates of fire between weapons to be representational of their differences, rather than accurate simulations.
They have to be able to take historical ships and make them fit into their various game mechanics, such as upgrade paths. In some ways, they can work actual historical upgrades and refits into account, such as the Iowa class starting out with the original open bridge, and eventually ending up with the enclosed bridge, or starting out with the SK radar, and eventually getting the SK-2, and they representationally upgrade the the stats of the ships along with it. The AA configurations change as well, but never quite as the ships actually had at any given point, because they have to balance the ships for their respective tiers and what they will face. So, they substitute dual-Bofors 40mm mounts where they should be quad mounts, and add or remove 20mm Oerlikons as needed. They throw in powerplant upgrades with no historical basis where needed. They make up upgrades that change rudder-shift times and turret traverse times, that have zero historical basis, but allow for a fun level of customization to make ships better suit an individual's play style. You can configure an Iowa-class to be a "stealth Iowa", with lower detectability, if desired, and hold your fire and sneak up on the enemy flank and surprise them with a close-quarters brawl. There is absolutely nothing realistic about that, but it sure can be fun!
I think World of Warships actually does a pretty fine job of balancing things, from the perspective of a game developer. Even then, the players still often gripe about the inevitable finer points of balancing, and the perceived biases of the developer. I think they do a pretty good job of making the game mechanics actually work, and giving a certain "feel" and play style to USN BBs as opposed to IJN BBs, for example, that might be representational of the actual history in certain ways, without going overboard with realism that would take all the fun out of it.