Two thousand men, and fifty thousand tonnes of steelSet the course for the Atlantic with the allies on their heelFirepower, firefightBattlestations, keep the targets steady in sight>>>/wsg/5965794
Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk
>>64238496Scuttled by 16inch naval gunfire :^)
If you've never been on a museum ship you owe yourself a trip, the scale of those things is crazy.
>>64238496Mission killed by one swordfish.>>64238590And Rodney's torpedoes.
>>64238480Fugg now I wanna play sea power but I have to work all day :(
>>64238480Not sure which fate is worse, being the subject of a sabaton song and mindless retarded obsession. Or getting gaijin'd.
>>64238496there are several interviews with survivors who explain in detail how they were ordered to and did the opening of the flood valves.
>JFK died of blood loss
>>64240069No it was cardiac arrest.
>>64238480My only real association with Bismarck was a period playing World of Warships as a Fletcher (love, life, etc). There was a weekend where Bismarck went on sale, so there were a bunch of idiots in Bismarcks who never played high-tier games before rolling around in straight lines at constant speeds, perpetually confused why they kept being spotted when behind islands (a state usually ended by a wall of torpedoes from suspiciously Fletcher-shaped patches of open ocean). The average skill on display felt very appropriate for Bismarck fanboys.
>>64240094Bismarck is a tech tree ship, you meant Tirpitz.
>>64240150It's been yonks, so I might be misremembering the sale bit. I do distinctly recall a sudden increase in Bismarck count/decrease in average Bismarck skill consistent with something like a sale, though.
>>64240336I know that some people still suck after playing for years, but getting Bismarck from tech tree requires some games played prior, while Tirpitz's only requirement is to pay money. Grinding up to tier 8 usually make people averse to torpedoes and Bismarck have hydro to detect them earlier. Tirpitz doesn't have it but torpedo launchers instead, so they tend to misplay, like charging in like destroyers with the intent of launching torps.
>>64238842>getting gaijin'dwhat about getting wargaming'd?
>>64238496>we scuttled Bismarck as a gesture of goodwill
With so many senior officers killed, it must have been difficult to even communicate the order to abandon ship.
>>64238496>Y-you can't fire me because I quit!
>>64238496Scuttled while sinking.
>>64238829Just play CMO.It's better and may even pass as a work related spreadsheet for a second.
>>64240094My association with Bismarck was anytime one appeared 6km away and opened up with like 300 perfectly accurate secondary battery guns, simultaneously breaking every part of my nip cruiser that could break and lighting me on fire in 3 places, and then torpedoing me when I tried to make a suicidal torpedo run. Also the Bismarck thing was probably a ship rental event, you can access those even if you just started playing.
>>64243354kino
>>64238603Aussie here, I want to do a tour of the US at some point in the next couple of years, any recommendations for museums? I want to see New Jersey obviously, but I haven't done much research into other places yet.
>>64243466that depends on where in America you want to visit
>>64243514I'd basically be going there to see war, computing, and aerospace museums, as well as finding a range where they let you shoot machine guns and full auto rifles/SMGs. I'd also be meeting my future sister-in-law's family in northern Commiefornia, might stop by to visit my aunt and uncle in Iowa.
>>64242165>we'll call it a draw
1922 was the second worst year of the decade.
>>64244217>we could be looking at several mile long B's by now:( pain
>>64242796>$79.99You wot m8
>>64242796>may even pass as a work related spreadsheet for a secondyour boss calls you inI'm very disappointed in you anonyou were playing vidya on company timeI understand, I love modern war tooI might have understood if you were playing CMANObut EVE Online? seriously?!>tfw you really were working on the quarterly report
>>64238496>not sunkahh yes the important distinction of whether or not the crew of the Bismarck detonated some explosives after is was clear the ship was lost
Where the FUCK is my 3 hour long, historically accurate, massive set-piece Battle of Jutland movie?
>>64247538Best I can do is a 3 hour narration with randos on YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhQow54xWFI
>>64247538It'd just be a three hours of people wondering why Beatty wasn't shot for treason?
>>64240083It was a brain hemorrhage
>>64247592Too soon, ghoul.
>>64247574That would be one of the core pieces of the movie. Imagine how infuriating it would be to see a couple of battlecruisers violently explode with thousands of lives on board, then the camera to pans to Beatty delivering his infamous "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." line.
The climax scene of the battle between battlecruisers comes too soon in this movie!
>>64247796I think it would play out in a similar way to Das Boot, the big fights are in the middle act but after that you get the harrowing chase, the tense night action, Seydlitz limping back with barely more freeboard than a monitor, and the hero's welcome back to port, followed up with the sobering realisation in high command as both sides learn that they haven't achieved their goals.
>>64244217Ah, but what about the hole left by the Helsinki-Seoul hyper naval treaty?
>>64243859>in northern CommieforniaUSS Hornet (CV-12) is pretty fucking great, can just spend a whole day there walking the ship on your own and chilling.Downside: you're right on the cancer AIDS axis of SF and Oakland.Upside: the bay area undesirables typically don't venture there.
>>64244238It was a blessing that John Fisher died 2 years before the WNT, because surely it would otherwise have killed him.
>>64252438Bismarks lucky shot was guided by the vengeful ghost of JF over Britain accepting the treaties
>>64244238How's a 2000 ft design sound? Still would be the longest ship ever launched.
>>64253529>2000 ft designEstimating by the Ford, Yamato and Iowa classes, it could theoretically measure 2000 feet long, have a beam of about 250 feet, and weigh a million tons
>>64253807You scaled up in 3 dimensions right? I've been designing a 2000 ft ship, and admittedly at a much narrower beam of 180 ft the design looks to come in about 350,000 t. The main difference I think is draught, if you want a million tons on 2000 x 250 the draft has to be at least about 29m (95 ft) which is massive and wouldn't fit into any harbour. I'm targetting a 50 ft draught, which is possible to fit in commercial harbours, although still too deep for many.With that sort of draught (90 ft) you could have a hell of a deck-armour though ... my design is 18" deck armour, already more than Yamato's belt, if you're willing to have a 90 ft draught you could just about double that
>>64253959Draught doesn't matter as much as beam. If you build your superstructure low and squat, and have a big fat beam, you don't need to fiddle with draught and weight (ballast) for stability. So you may assume a draught of 35 feet, roughly.All I did was take a conservative beam-length ratio of 8:1 and estimate density based on these 3 ships. By and large it won't change much because, again, these figures adopt a conservative estimate for height and displacement, since we don't have access to the actual formulae for calculating these things.I have not worked out armour plating. Something like 40% of steel (400,000 tons!) should be realistic.
>>64254007You can work out displacement fairly easily. Mutltiply draught x length x beam, and multiply by a block coefficient (0.6-0.7 is common for IRL ships, at this scale you can probably push it to 0.75 or 0.8).The problem with low-draught is deck-armour. If the ship needs X tonnes for a turret, you can just make it longer or wider until you get X tonnes of buoyancy. If you want X thickness of deck armour (+ keel armour now that guided torps are everywhere) then you need a minimum of 8 times that thickness in draft just to float the armour alone (steel is 7.85 times denser than water) and it doesn't matter how wide/long you make the shipMy design has another 12" on the keel, for example, so that + the 18" deck is 30" (or 2'6") so it needs 20 ft of draught just for deck/keel armour, not including side-armour, engines, guns, etc, etc
>>64254028>If you want X thickness of deck armour (+ keel armour now that guided torps are everywhere) then you need a minimum of 8 times that thickness in draft just to float the armour alone (steel is 7.85 times denser than water) and it doesn't matter how wide/long you make the shipI think you might be double counting the armour therebut I don't know much about displacement and draughteasy answer is just militarise the Seawise Giant. it's a bit smaller than 2000 feet or 1 million tons but it's quite big
>>64253529>>64253807If you want to theorycraft an Xbox hueg battleship, SpringSharp is the way to do it.I'll whip up something in an hour or two once I'm done watching a film.
The thickness of the Yamato-class side armor plates was such that the rapid cooling after heat treatment did not penetrate deep into the interior, preventing martensite from being generated as intended.Additionally, the installation of armor plates must be limited to about 70 tons per plate, and as the plates get thicker, they must be subdivided, increasing the number of weak spots at the joints.
>>64254159>>64254062>>64254028I don't know how SpringSharp holds up at these enormous displacements, even with six quad-barrel 20" gun turrets (three in a low/high/low fore, same arrangement aft), an 8" secondary battery, a 4.5" DP tertiary battery, 32 knots top speed, 20,000 nautical miles of cruise range, 20" belt and turret armour, etc. it comes in at a whopping 381,100 tons standard.https://pastebin.com/wLmFCWbM
>>64254447I know nothing about SpringSharp. I'm using a calculator and a pen.I reckon I can do a lot better than that too. Notably, over double the armour and a lot faster. (Because, what good is a 32 knot gunship when your enemies can run away at 32 knots? You need to run them down)Admittedly I have no plan on armament. First version had 12 twin-15" Bismarck guns
>>64254511SpringSharp is a fancier calculator, but if you don't know the general rules on how to use it you'll probably run into issues. I could throw a lot more armour and speed into it from a hull packaging perspective, but it's gonna blow the weight up a fair bit.
>>64253529Seems kinda small desu, we must go bigger
>>64254546Forgot to add, the main reason to use SS is because it has important formulas for figuring out required engine power for a given top speed on the specified hull size, or how much weight you can cram on your ship before the hull isn't strong enough or it tips over.
>>64254553I'm taking that as part of the challenge of desiging. The weight and buoyancy is fairly eqasyto calculate. (it's just volume displaced, and I don't know if it calculates total or just the amount in the citadel) I don't know the formulas for the engine power it uses, but I can use the empirical Admiralty Formula to get a scaling factor from the Iowas, and the metacentric height should give a fairly good idea of the ship's roll characteristics. (Wikipedia lists Vanguard's metacentric heigt as about 8 feet, and given her excellent seakeeping, I feel inclined to copy that, although I have not yet run any calculations on stability. I think, given the keel armour's weight, the ship will be stable, if not too stable, which can be solved with a heavier superstructure)I think about 1,000,000 shaft horsepower should bring her to 40 knots, although this calculation is for an earlier version of the hull and I need to re-do it.Does SS do screw requirements? Prop design is a bit of black magic as I understand it, and for that much power I will probably need a wide transom stern and a screw arrangement that resembles an eldritch horror
The refitted standards are so FUCKING cool
Someone needs to hurry up and invent force fields whose protection is directionally proportional to the amount of power that you shove into them, meaning that large ships have better protection, from their larger power-plants they can fit and we get to have cool battleships for a while again.
>>64254698a bit of standardization in the AA sector wouldn't have hurt much
>>64254700nigger what are you talking about
>>64254699bigass lazors hold that promise, sort ofin atmosphere they can only be used as CIWS, and a big ship will be able to mount many more of them than a small oneother big ships will have to launch as many laser-resistant, inexpensive projectiles as possible from way over the horizon to have a hope of penetrating the laser bubbleI'd say the future is bright for super-battleships
>>64254700I count like 4 calibers in 6 different kinds of mounts, feel free to correct me
>>64254736>>64254722oops
>>6425473620mm Oerlikon, 40mm Bofors, and 5"/38 cal secondary battery. You're also literally the only person on the internet criticizing late war USN AA.
>>64254698oh lawd she comin'
>>64248860That was about space navies
>>64254773the 20mm lack stopping power and has pitiful practical range, they should be deleted in favor of more Bofors in better armored quad mountsthe 5in38s make sense as a dual-purpose secondary battery but you don't really need such a big secondary battery and they move too slowly to be really great in the AAA role at medium/short ranges, so I would delete a couple of those in favor of... you guessed it, more Bofors in better armored mounts
>>64254174Richelieu's cuter with a moe fang
>>642548465in/38 mounts have more than enough traverse speed to track planes outside and within bofor range, and thanks to VT fuze and longer range, they create an extra layer of AA bubble that bombers need to go through.
>>64254846Why not replace them all with fully automatic radar guided 3" while you're at it, moron
>>64255096>and withinno>they create an extra layer of AA bubbleyes, the long-range layer, which is why I am not proposing to delete ALL of them, just one pair of turrets, 4 guns>>64255128>fully automatic radar guided 3"not sure they were available at the time?
>>64255510Within I meant 3km is within bofor range and 5in can still track the planes.
>>64255541the bubbles overlap at their respective inner/outer edge yes, that is as it should beyou are covering all the space quite nicely with just two calibers
I personally want a film adaptation of second Guadalcanal.
