Hello, everyone.
While I was away during most of January, and half of this time I've spent in Saint-Petersburg, taking part in conversations, meetings, holywars and so on, I still think I have something to say. This is not about the game itself, just because everything small that I can tell, I'm telling at NA and RU forums - and big news aren't going to happen until OBT starts. But as a man, taking part into the making of ship trees process, I want to share some more info.
Today we gonna look at some rare USN ships, which were actually never-built due to some reasons.
Let us start with this one:
This is a so-called "small" battleship, year 1919 project, or, to be certain, the "Small Battleship - Design F-3" preliminary design proposal, dated April 1919.
Normal displacement - 21.500 tonns.
Speed - 18 knots.
Armor - 12" belt.
Guns - two twin 16".
Of course, Mr. Freedman's book can tell us what is it and why it was proposed with far greater detail.
I'll just tell that in my own words: Chief Constructor of USN in 1919, Rear Admiral David W. Taylor, felt that ships were started to grow into a very large ones, so he tried to let see what can be done with less effort in materials, money and crew.
The results were...not the ones he hoped for. Even the smallest of these small battleships were larger than a dreadnought, while being slower, somewhat with same protection and only with four 16" guns (which was half of the firepower of Colorado class, for example).
The 29 knot version of this "small" battleship had normal displacement of 37.000 tonns, which was a 5.000 tonns larger (!) than a Colorado class battleship. Of course, when actual numbers appeared, all of this "small" battleship designs went right to the far-far shelf.
So, you can understand why this beautiful concept of "more battleships with less money" crashed. All in all, for the country with such an industrial potential, like USA, it wasn't so attractive anyway.
While it was not the first time, when great ideas weren't in touch with a reality, this case is a rather demonstrative one.
Thanks for reading,
KGB out
While I was away during most of January, and half of this time I've spent in Saint-Petersburg, taking part in conversations, meetings, holywars and so on, I still think I have something to say. This is not about the game itself, just because everything small that I can tell, I'm telling at NA and RU forums - and big news aren't going to happen until OBT starts. But as a man, taking part into the making of ship trees process, I want to share some more info.
Today we gonna look at some rare USN ships, which were actually never-built due to some reasons.
Let us start with this one:
This is a so-called "small" battleship, year 1919 project, or, to be certain, the "Small Battleship - Design F-3" preliminary design proposal, dated April 1919.
Normal displacement - 21.500 tonns.
Speed - 18 knots.
Armor - 12" belt.
Guns - two twin 16".
Of course, Mr. Freedman's book can tell us what is it and why it was proposed with far greater detail.
I'll just tell that in my own words: Chief Constructor of USN in 1919, Rear Admiral David W. Taylor, felt that ships were started to grow into a very large ones, so he tried to let see what can be done with less effort in materials, money and crew.
The results were...not the ones he hoped for. Even the smallest of these small battleships were larger than a dreadnought, while being slower, somewhat with same protection and only with four 16" guns (which was half of the firepower of Colorado class, for example).
The 29 knot version of this "small" battleship had normal displacement of 37.000 tonns, which was a 5.000 tonns larger (!) than a Colorado class battleship. Of course, when actual numbers appeared, all of this "small" battleship designs went right to the far-far shelf.
So, you can understand why this beautiful concept of "more battleships with less money" crashed. All in all, for the country with such an industrial potential, like USA, it wasn't so attractive anyway.
While it was not the first time, when great ideas weren't in touch with a reality, this case is a rather demonstrative one.
Thanks for reading,
KGB out
The US counterpart to the Deutschland-class cruiser, slower but with bigger guns.
ReplyDeleteQ. Will the year of manufacture and design affect the performance of the guns?
The performance of the guns will be based on the real historical characteristics of these guns.
DeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteIn WoT we have several rather odd vehicles added to the game just for pure fun of playing them. By odd i mean mostly the low tier light tanks, that do not fit into the tech tree, but have been used historically (like Tetrarch, or that odd evbelope-shaped tank whih name i can never remember from RU server).
When it comes to ships i this category I instanty think of trade ships rebuilt to war wessels usualy armed with poor guns and almost totaly unarmored, wit their guns hidden behind "fake cargo". These are he kind of ships that I always wonder if will ever make it into the game ... can we cont on one or two "for fun ships" like these in the game? Or were they never considered?
I doubt that auxiliary cruisers will appear in WoWS.
DeleteThat's very bad news for me :(
DeleteYou should at least consider some of them to be put in the game anyway. Some examples are HMS Pretoria Castle that will be an awesome premium low tier aircraft carrier. This was converted from a large passenger liner to a ship capable of carrying 21 aircrafts. How is that not good enough to be at least a premium? :(
Some other example is german Hansa converted from a cargo ship. It had 8x 150mm guns, and total of 42 AA guns from 20 to 37 mm. As these 150mm guns do not make it a great thing to use against other ships, it would be a rather nice aircraft defence ship, and it also carried one aircraft itself! The main weapons here can be compared to light cruiser Emden (the same caliber and amount of heavy guns), and at the same time Endem did not have that impressive amount of AA guns! That simply makes auxiliary cruiser Hansa just an exchange of armor for its exceptional air defense.
Maybe You should reconsider these pretty please? ;)
I know that thereare not many of auxiliary ships that are really worth attention in this category, but as I said: some of them are a great premium material!
Auxiliary cruisers are ships made specially for attack on merchants, and any clear-minded admiral would never take one to his task force, if he have an opportunity to take destroyers, cruisers, carriers and battleships.
DeleteIndeed. But these auxiliary cruisers were more effective against allied MERCHANT ships on average, than heavy warships of the Kriegsmarine.
DeleteFor example the HSK-5 Penguin sank or captured 28 ships, a total of 136,642 gross register tons. (A further four ships were sunk by mines, a total of 18,068 tons.) The Pinguin's grand total amounts to 154,710 gross register tons.
In comparison the a Gr. Spee in autumn of 1939 sank merchant ship cargohold in worth of about 50 000 tons.
Seems like my last post has disappeared, so I'm gonna repost it ... at least in a way ;)
DeleteAs much as any reasonable admiral would never take auxiliary cruisers to his task force, we can not pretend that auxiliary cruisers never existed. As much as I agree with You that in a real battle these ships would most probably be faaar away hunting on enemy supply routes, this is not a simulation game as far as i know, but an MMO that is supposed to be adressing as big audience as possible.
Of course no matter what deisions You guys make there I will try the game anyway, and screenshots shown so far clearly show that You are doing a great job there.
On the other hand ... since these three titles are trying to do pretty much te same thig with different categories of combat vehicles, we should point out that no reasonable general would bring artilery so close to the battlefield as it is in WoT ;)
No the last thing is wnat ShidenOne pointed out:
Many auxiliary cruisers have prove that they were just as effective as any other ship if used correctly. Of course they were made based on ships that were not designed as war wessels, but they still managed to fit very well in this role. If there is anything I would want to see in a game is always variery, and less linear the game is (i'm not talking about a story here), the better.
Anyway, I still think You guys are doing a freat job there, so can't wait to see the game at east in a beta phase! :)
Excuse me for the General question but its urgent ..
ReplyDeleteWould WarGaming.NET Release some modding tools like Crytek did ?
I mean , Modding tools for Maps , Models , Textures , Tanks ... Everything .
But lets make it bold that NOTHING really changing in the game , the bounding boxes and collisions would be still the same and everything would be just only visual skin and nothing more then that .
Your modding community also have dreams , Would you make them become to reality ?
Hey KGB,
ReplyDeletewhat is (will be) the main drawback of WW1 ships in comparisation to early WW2 or late WW2 designs?
Im asking, because firingpower and range-wise they havent had as much difference as tanks had.
Also: what kind of ammunition will be introduced? AP, HE, (prem?).
Main WWI ships drawback is that they are either slower or less armed than their WWII analouges.
DeleteAt what tier will WWI era ships end? will they go past tier 3?
DeleteSome WWI ships will go past Tier VI.
DeleteJust wondering:
DeleteWill we have some early ships that were "hybrids" and except powerful engines sthill had masts etc.? I know that all in all it's justa cosmetic matter, but It would just look kinda awesome ;)
If you mean old ironclad designs, than no.
DeleteI was thinking more of some pre-Drednaught ships like built in 1900 japanese Mikasa, or british HMS Dominion back from 1903.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will be interested to see how they handle ships that were rebuilt or modernized between wars or in the early parts of WWII. Most battleships between the wars saw increase in elevation of the main battery, addition of dual purpose guns to replace dedicated anti-aircraft and anti-small ship guns, superstructure and armor changes, and propulsion changes to oil and better boilers. Speed rarely changed, but range usually increased. I like the Queen Elizabeth class as an example of improving a battleship.
DeleteHello, just a general thought on the WoWs - when we look at the WoT engine, specifically on firing effects... I think we can generally say they aren't... how to say it... earthbreaking. I mean - sure, the exhaust flame from the cannon and the sound probably isn't the most important thing to look at when you fire a tank, but I wonder, if this aspect could be amplified for the warships. You know, something like the movie Battleship - huge flames, big "boom", effect that makes you think the warship could shatter a mountain with a single shot, not the WoT "plop"... I hope to see that :) (yes, I know it might not exactly be the most realistic thing around, however... :)
ReplyDeleteWoT engine is WoT engine, WoWS engine is WoWS engine, there is almost zero connections between them.
DeleteGet Yourself a nice subwoofer, and let us know how it feels now :D
DeleteI don't really think that this sound set we have atm is actualy bad. Maybe the only problem is that we have (i think) 4 different sounds for firing? Or maybe 3 +1 for arty fire. Anyway .. some guns feel like they would fit best with a new sound that is a bit more powerful from the currently set one, but the "next available" sound in the other hand would be a bit to much. At least that's what it feels like here :)
BTW:
I totaly agree with special effects, as xcept the big boom of a naval gun, and a big fireball there is also a massive shockwave that bends the water surface:
http://www.fototime.com/367D261FB98682D/standard.jpg
Now if that's in the game as well ... I'm sold ! :D
I'm glad to hear you are creating a new engine. With what's been learned from WoT, and all the new technologies in the last 3 years I'm anticipating better graphics, sound, and performance from WoWS.
ReplyDeleteDont forget Multicore support :)
DeleteHi. Considering how Gaijins War Thunder has put WoWp to shame with its superior content, engine and their plan to combine tanks, planes and ships to one battle, do you have any plans to hurry and finish the game sooner and what is your opinion on that mater?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Gaijins would ever put WoWp to shame.
DeleteI would say that at the present moment WT looks like a better product then WoWp, but i belive WT is mutch further ahead development vise, so it's not a fair comparison.
DeleteThere has been very little info on features of WoWp, i would guess due to the direct competition, but in todays information world the lack of info can help or hurt you so its a fine balance. Nowdays the word is going around that WT is better, from people who has played both, it may hurt you in the long run, giving that WT has a head start, even if you make a better product in the end.
Whatever deisions, of course, I will let you try this game no matter how to, and the screenshots shown so far clearly shows that you are doing a very important work.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand... Because these three titles almost te is trying to do the same thing and different types of combat vehicles, we should point out that no reasonable general will bring artilery so close to the battlefield, because it is in the know,
No, the last thing is to ShidenOne pointed out:
Many auxiliary cruiser have proved that they are just as effective, if used correctly. Any other ship Of course they didn't design is based on ship wessels for war, but they still managed to cooperate on the character very well. If there are any I want to see in the game always variery, and less linear games (I'm not talking about a story here), the better.
cheap nike elite nfl jerseys
Sadly, it is not sharing further details about any buy cheap windows 7 key other additions. It leaves Nokia as well as other telephone makers obtaining to depend on hardware selling points, figuring out complete nicely that the Windows Telephone software program buy office professional plus 2010 retail pack and ecosystem still lags the competition.
ReplyDelete