Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'earls inquiry'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Drag Interests

Found 4 results

  1. Earl is now back with another Ship👏Proposal👏, and i'll promise it makes more sense compared to last time. sigh As you might know, there's no special supercruiser like Alaska or Azuma for the British line. Thankfully, there's many design that actually exist and enough information to be made into a sensible proposal. Here's my attempt on one. Earl's Inquiry: British Supercruiser Proposal Modified 1930 Lillicrap Battlecruiser Design HMS Defence, Earl's 'Supercruiser' design Historical Background and Rationale Lillicrap's Design In 1930-32, the Royal Navy asked Sir Charles Lillicrap, chief designer of Leander and Arethusa-class light cruiser, to conduct a study of small capital ships as examples for the 1932 Geneva Disarmament Conference. At this time, the-then under construction Deutschland-class 'pocket battleships' caused a stir among British officials, as said ship can outgun most Royal Navy cruisers and outrun their capital ships. The only ships strong and fast enough to counter them is the Battlecruiser Squadron consisting of Hood, Renown, and Repulse. However, the British recognize that such limited amount is not enough to cover the vast area of operation Deutschland expected to raid. Not only that, there's been talks about imposing even stricter standard on capital ships to a maximum of 25.000t displacement and 12" caliber. With this in mind, Lillicrap devised two potential design: 1930. 20,000tons 680' waterline, beam 84', 90' over bulges; draught 22'; (3x2)12" or 10" (6x2)6" 6x4.7". Armor 9" side, 5" deck. 80,000shp for 30 knots 1932. 18,500tons 660', beam 83ft draught 21' (3x2)10" (4x2)6" (4x2) HA (2x8)2pdr. Armor 8" side, 3"+1" deck 80,000shp, 30 knots While perfectly serviceable, such ship were eventually discarded as the conference ends without any agreement reached. These so-called small battlecruisers were deemed impractical and too expensive in early 1930s. 1938 Study After the Second London Naval Treaty, another problem arose. The Mogami and Brooklyn-class started a new generation of heavily armed, decently protected cruisers capable of standing toe-to-toe against treaty heavy cruisers like the County-class. While the new Town-class light cruiser were deemed capable, majority of British cruiser force consists of old heavy cruisers or small trade escort light cruisers. Again, the Admiralty commissioned another study to determine the most effective way to encounter the new ship. New designs came and went, most fitted with 8" guns in triple turrets and were precursor to the eventual Admiral-class cruiser (Albemarle in-game). However, the most interesting is Study 3 (12in/20,000t). Basically early Alaska, at 20,000 tons, it was armed with six 12" guns, with 7" belt and 3" deck, which was what the Japanese were (incorrectly) reported to be building. Unlike the 8" and 9.2" cruisers, it was legal under the 1936 treaty, because it came in above the prohibited cruiser zone (8,000-17,000 tons, 6.1in to 10in guns). But again, it was abandoned and the project went for more economical 8" and 9.2" design previously mentioned. Rationale - Why? Battle of the River Plate shows how the Admiral Graf Spee almost managed to outfight their cruiser force, and only subdued after the British arrives with Renown, Ark Royal, and more heavy cruisers. The lack of sizeable and fast enough warship capable to intercept and hunt German warships is a major thorn for the British, especially after the loss of Hood and Repulse so early in the war. This losses were only partly-remedied by employment of battleships among convoy as passive deterrence, but the problem still remains. By the end of the war, only Renown and brand-new Vanguard were fit for this cruiser-killer role, while the number of even more powerful cruisers like Des Moines are coming online. While investment for Town and subsequent Crown Colony-classes were important, it would be interesting on what happen if the British went like the French did on Dunkerque and later Americans with their Alaska. While the cost of many designs previously mentioned is double that of the light cruisers, they're substantially more capable for the size. The fact they're economical compared to full-fledged fast battleships is attractive not only for post-war situation but also for Commonwealth nations for home defense like the WWI Indefatigable-class. Considering how they're built to conform harsher treaty limitation than what eventually agreed upon, such designs could be ideal in another world. Analysis for inclusion in-game Defence's first iteration, the Defiance with more historical AA based on King George V It is weird that the Royal Navy, a major naval power both in real life and in game, lacked special ship for ‘supercruiser’ moniker in-game like Alaska, Azuma, and Kronstadt. Because of that, this ship is designed in such a way that it would be a viable competitor against said ships at Tier 9. While the design mentioned before were perfectly capable in their own right, the lack of high enough speed and mediocre armament compared to Dunkerque then under construction necessitated improvement in that department, and thus ballooned from 20.000t to about 27.000t based on my calculation. A switch to triple turrets and emphasis on endurance contribute much to the increase. For the design in itself, it’s based on the general specifications outlined before and also on King George V-class with influence from Renown and Lion. As a British ship, the flavor remain the same par with the battleship and heavy cruiser: low health pool (58.300), very high performance HE focus, serviceable AP, agility, and concealment. In general, the ship would have reload of around 20-22s, supercruiser dispersion with touch of higher sigma, agility similar to Thunderer, and normal fuse. Protection wise, it’s in between Alaska and Azuma. Her drawback include shorter range at 16.5 km and mediocre AA defense. It will play as like other British ship; Support and kite. For consumables, it will be limited to regular damage control and enhanced repair party to compensate the lack of health pool, complemented by choice of spotter or catapult fighter aircraft for range and self-defense. But Earl, that sounds like Azum- sssshh The thing about British flavor is how boring it is generally. And considering how Wargaming shaped it like that from ground up, I have nothing but to fit with said flavor. However, I tried my best to make it perform more consistently with ability to tank somewhat, offering a hybrid between Alaska and Azuma (let’s ignore Agir). It has flexibility to operate as medium-range stealthy ship or long-range trebuchet, both with heal and agility good enough to pull out safely. And of course, usual stats like alpha would be up to Wargaming for balancing. Strengths: Phenomenal HE performance signature of British line plus serviceable AP without the short fuse. Best rudder shift at 12 s stock. Second-best concealment at 12 km max. Torpedoes. Weaknesses: Mediocre AA Lowest health pool out of all supercruiser Short-ranged guns at 16.5 km More on the squishy side even with enhanced heal Specification Displacement 27.000t standard 31.500t full Length 212 m (overall) Beam 27.4 m Draft 6.7 m Armament 9x 12" (305 mm)/50 Mk. XIV gun, in triple turret, AB-X 20x 4.5" (113 mm) /45 QF Mk. I gun, five per side in twin mounts 46x 40 mm Bofors, in various mounts 28x 20 mm Oerlikon, in various mounts 8x 533 mm torpedo tubes, four per side Speed 33 knots Armor 9.2" (234 mm) belt 5" (127 mm) deck 9" (229 mm) turret and barbettes Thoughts?
  2. Due to popular demand, and not certainly because i'm held at gunpoint by certain Naughtius_Maximus, today Earl will cover the Royal Australian Navy aircraft carrier. You know it as the Pride of the Australian Navy*, HMAS Melbourne (R21)! *though you probably know her more as the best modern age teamkiller Oh god, here we go. Roll the slide Earl's Mini-Inquiry: HMAS Melbourne (R21) Historical Background Melbourne was laid down for the Royal Navy as the lead ship of the Majestic-class in 1943, and was launched as HMS Majestic (R77) in 1945. At the end of the Second World War, work on the ship was suspended until she was purchased by the RAN in 1947. At the time of purchase, it was decided to incorporate new aircraft carrier technologies into the design, making Melbourne the third ship ever to be constructed with an angled flight deck. Delays in construction and integrating the enhancements meant that the carrier was not commissioned until 1955. At the time of completion, she was one of the most advanced aircraft carriers of her time thanks to her modification, carried sophisticated de Havilland Sea Venom jet fighters and heavyweight turboprop Fairey Gannet (and later helicopters) as her complement. While packing modern gadgets, she was small at just over 20,000 tonnes and thus carried fewer aircraft than many other Aircraft Carriers. Nonetheless, Melbourne served a quiet, 27 year long career, notably during the Indonesian Confrontation and Vietnam War ferrying planes and conducting ASW patrols. She made her mark in history not because of her advanced design, but rather two accidents that sank two allied destroyers, HMAS Voyager in 1964 and USS Frank E. Evans in 1969. Fairey Gannet (top) and de Havilland Sea Venom (bottom) formed the core of Melbourne's airgroup Analysis for Inclusion In-Game The thing for Melbourne is how hard she would be for balancing. Her historical loadout of jet aircraft and turboprops are indeed powerful, however packs a few of them. At most, she is capable of carrying 32 aircraft, well below many other Carriers. I would place her as a Commonwealth Tier X aircraft carrier, based on the following reasons: Even smaller carriers like Saipan are sufficiently capable at their tier if the aircraft are good enough to compensate the smaller number. Melbourne would be the same case at tier 10. Her Sea Venom can speed through flaks and DPS AA easily, while the slower Gannet can dodge and tank more damage due to the small size and rugged construction. The capability of her aircraft would be mismatched at Tier 8, both in historical sense and gameplay sense. You don't or want to see jets raining hell on sad New Mexico or Fubuki. Therefore, with tier set, we go for her characteristics. Comparisons would be drawn from Audacious (Tier X RN Aircraft Carrier) already in-game unless specifically noted. Melbourne would have: Smaller squadron size and deck space (around 6-9 and ~30 respectively) thus the smallest at her tier. Aircraft restoration time would be slightly slower at around 85 second per aircraft. Highest aircraft healthpool, tied with Franklin D. Roosevelt Rocket attack planes would be six de Havilland Sea Venom Mk. 53 fighter jet squadron. Each squadron's attacking flight is 3 aircraft and each aircraft carried 8 RP-3 rockets found on Audacious, thus amounting to a total of 24 rockets. Cruising and maximum speed would be around 215 and 250 knots respectively. Due to their nature, they're rather slow to turn but can sustain maximum speed much longer. Torpedo Bombers would be nine Fairey Gannet AS1/4 turboprop aircraft. Each squadron's attacking flight is 3 aircraft and each aircraft carried two Mk XVII torpedo (same as Audacious) with six per flight on torpedo bomber configuration. Dive bombers would be Fairey Gannet AS1/4 turboprop aircraft, as seen in the Torpedo Bomber wings. They would be armed with four 500 lb G.P. bombs (also found on Audacious) with twelve per flight on shallow dive bomber configuration. Cruising and maximum would be speed would be around 135 and 165 knots respectively. Due to their nature, they're a bit faster and have a tighter turn radius than average planes. The Aircraft Carrier ship would have the smallest healthpool and have the slowest speed (24 knots) at her tier. In exchange, she has a very favorable detection radius of around 12 km [Optional] Anti-Submarine Warfare consumable in the form of helicopters. Thoughts? This thread is dedicated to@Max_Battle, special thanks to @S4pp3Rfor fixing my awful grammar
  3. Hello everyone, Earl has been hooked up with an interesting prospect, that is a possible, Tech Tree split of the British battleship line. It's rather short, but at early stage discussion is always helpful for research. Here's what i've been up to. Abstract and Premise Current Line Details Note: Work in progress Tier V - Tiger (Tiger-class Battlecruiser) Tier VI - Renown (Renown-class Battlecruiser) Tier VII - Anson (Admiral-class Battlecruiser) Tier VIII - Howe (J3 Project) Tier IX - Hawke (K3 Project) Tier X - St. Vincent (Lion-class Post-war design) What-to-Finish Gimmick Statistics Proper Tier X Possible upgrades
  4. Earl's Mini-Inquiry: A look at Yugoslav Destroyer Split Historical Background Original Design She was conceived in early 1930s from the rising need to counter any Italian destroyer in case of conflict. The Yugoslav decided to built a single large destroyer type as opposed to another Beograds, and contracted a French company to design the new ship. For start, she was based on the famed Le Fantasque-class in MN service, focusing on speed and firepower. However, she was going to be powered by British-designed propulsion (which drives her up to 37 knots), Advanced fire controls from France and guns from Sweden and Czechoslovakia. Split was intended to mount five Skoda 140 mm (5.5 in)/56 guns (massive for a destroyer, though some said it was going to be replaced by 127 mm variant instead) and respectable anti-aircraft punch with twin Skoda 37 mm and 15 mm. She also packs two, triple 533 mm torpedo tubes for good measure. This 2,400t beast could be called the most powerful destroyer at that time. She was then laid down in July 1939. Italian Service Sadly, WWII put a halt on her construction, and soon the Italians captured her half-complete on her namesake city. The Regia Marina decided to continue her construction, replacing the machinery with Italian-built one, and the main armament changed to 135 mm (5.3 in)/45 guns with her AA replaced by Breda. Split was put on high priority as the Italians lacked destroyers, and she was launched in 1943 with this configuration, though work was halted again after the Italian surrendered. She was briefly used by the Germans and stripped of any valuable material before being scuttled. Post-War Yugoslav Service With their navy lacking any sizable warships, the Yugoslav government decided to 'resurrect' Split and began ordering parts to properly rebuilt her. However, with Tito-Stalin Split (totally not a pun), they were unable to get her original armament. Due to this, Yugoslavia approached US and UK, and they give them surplus 127 mm (5 in)/38, 40 mm Bofors and advanced electronics with her Italian propulsion replaced by British one. With minor modifications to her hull and removal of one of her torpedo tubes, Split was finally commissioned into Yugoslav Navy in 1953 as flagship. So, considering her very 'unique' life, it is almost evil not to include her in World of Warships. Not only that, she has three different configurations to potentially play with. European Harekaze? Now we're talking! Annoying destroyer with hard-hitting guns that reload slowly, fast speed, and ok-ish AA. More balanced destroyer with hard-hitting guns that reload a little quicker and faster speed in exchange for bad AA. Dakka-Dakka destroyer with good AA and hydro? So, What do you guys think? does she fits in the game as a potential premium ship?
×