|
RZApublican posted:I might be wrong but the last time it was brought up someone mentioned that Landing Ships of any variety are capable of unloading all of their cargo in one trip without any penalties. Correct. It's important because in an atoll, you have to Shock Attack every day you unload, so it's important to A. unload in as few days as possible and B. unload as much stuff as possible in the one day you're unloading.
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
What's the soonest Grey can get the Ki-84, Ki-100, and N1K-J into service? Those are really the only Japanese planes that are really suited for fighting late war US aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Duckaerobics posted:This isn't really the place for it, but those ships are a clusterfuck in a bunch of ways. The manufacturer is currently being sued because they had workers use giant circular saws to cut metal even the though the saw manufacturer says specifically not to do that. It has led to a bunch of people losing fingers/hands/arms, but is faster than doing it the right way. Any time you see big corrosion problems post launch or a lot of injuries on the job, it's a clear sign of a corner-cutting and poorly-managed company. Sacrificial anodes are nothing new, and the grand fix Austal announced for their third ship was to actually use them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Grumio posted:I always misread those as the Literal Combat Ships Threatening to invade Britain despite naval inferiority and a total lack of appropriate landing craft: littorally Hitler.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
goatface posted:Does the game distinguish between nightfighters and regular fighters? As you would expect from a game this grognardy, it does! The USA gets a handful of squadrons flying planes like the P-61 Black Widow, P-70 Havoc, and night fighter variants of the Hellcat, Corsair, and Tigercat. The Brits have Fireflys, Beaufighters, and Mosquitos fill the role. All of these carry some form of radar. Unlike ships, I actually don't see separate day/night experience or skill listings for air groups, but it wouldn't surprise me if the game has it modeled in some obscure stat tucked away somewhere. I've never actually used them since an AI Japan tends to give up on night bombing (at least in any amount that matters) long before night fighters come online.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Speaking of those, it absolutely blows my mind that shipbuilders are still running face first into problems with galvanic corrosion. Within ten years of the launch of the first iron-hulled warship (HMS Warrior), designs were already being pioneered to avoid the issue. HMS Inconstant used a clever system of wood furring to keep the copper and iron separate - in 1868. 150 years later, we apparently have forgotten these lessons. Did some digging since I used to work at a corrosion center. The hulls are aluminum. Apparently some shipbuilding doof forgot that there aren't any salt water proof aluminum alloys.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:Did some digging since I used to work at a corrosion center. Are they too far into the project to change it or is this gonna a comedy of errors until the first ship disintegrates on deployment?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Are they too far into the project to change it or is this gonna a comedy of errors until the first ship disintegrates on deployment? Note that this is educated guessing not based on first hand info They'll most likely have to do a very strict paint inspection schedule and *probably* use some of the really heavy duty epoxy based paints.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Threatening to invade Britain despite naval inferiority and a total lack of appropriate landing craft: littorally Hitler.  edit: good reading on that topic Coucho Marx fucked around with this message at 06:35 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Threatening to invade Britain despite naval inferiority and a total lack of appropriate landing craft: littorally Hitler. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 06:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Threatening to invade Britain despite naval inferiority and a total lack of appropriate landing craft: littorally Hitler. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Okay, it's almost that time again. Someone fix the graphs before the month ends.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Someone got a link to the spreadsheet?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:Did some digging since I used to work at a corrosion center. Aluminum hulls have other challenges for warships, not least of which is that they apparently have an unfortunate tendency to melt and catch fire at significantly lower temperatures than steel. This has significant downsides e.g. when hit with an Exocet. Needing to keep the ship painted is probably nothing new; my understanding is that modern vessels rely on specialized biocidal anti-fouling paints to keep sea life from colonizing below the waterline. It's the galvanic corrosion that's a real problem, as an aluminum-steel interface turns the steel into a sacrificial anode for the aluminum. Admittedly, missing a spot of anti-fouling paint doesn't normally seek out any non-isolated steel in the ship and rust it!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Aluminum hulls have other challenges for warships, not least of which is that they apparently have an unfortunate tendency to melt and catch fire at significantly lower temperatures than steel. This has significant downsides e.g. when hit with an Exocet. One can Google "destroyed m2a2 bradley" and see a bunch of photos of their burnt aluminium hulls having swallowed their steel turrets. It's mostly fine when you're literally a leap away from the exit. Probably not cool if you're trapped inside a burning warship. But hey, at least they're not making them out of magnesium! Yet!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Rocket tag don't-get-hit sailing is the now.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
817 posted:But hey, at least they're not making them out of magnesium! You joke but I've seen work on magnesium, studying behavior under high rate impacts, with the eventual goal of using it for light weight structural elements in certain vehicles. It does have its advantages - it's very, very light.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
817 posted:But hey, at least they're not making them out of magnesium! Maybe if the heat was removed from the magnesium hull faster than it can build up then there wouldn't be a potential problem with flammability? What if there was a system of pipes carrying liquid oxygen within the hull to deal with that?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
If I remember highschool chem correctly, pure magnesium violently reacts with air, water, really anything not a noble gas. Keeping it cool wouldn't do much, I think. I totally want to watch what would happen if you dropped a ship-sized mass of magnesium in the ocean though. From a very safe distance.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Magnesium's actually ok at normal conditions. It's commonly used for various mechanical parts. Heat it enough in the presence of oxygen, though, and you're going to get a great lightshow. You're probably thinking of lithium, which is usually kept in oil and really doesn't like water. As in, it will catch fire if you put it in water.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Deep Dish Fuckfest posted:Maybe if the heat was removed from the magnesium hull faster than it can build up then there wouldn't be a potential problem with flammability? What if there was a system of pipes carrying liquid oxygen within the hull to deal with that? We should have quick-acting water mist fire suppression systems in case it does catch fire so that the fire can be dealt with quickly!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Oh yeah I'm thinking lithium. Magnesium gets a crust of magnesium oxide on the outer layer when exposed to air that keeps the rest from exploding without adding more energy, iirc.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
   We wreak two more ships.  Excellent! These were loaded!   I'm going to shift some smaller units around now to try and garrison holdings in China and Indochina – I think we are done expanding, but I would like to stop the slow drip of points losses I've been accepting up until now. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Not bad. Sunk destroyers are sunk destroyers.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Duckaerobics posted:Mobile (pronouced mo-bee-all) is a fairly large city in Alabama. I assume that's what the ship is named after. Mobile Bay was also the site of a significant naval battle in the American civil war most famous for the union commanders order to sail through a minefield saying, "drat the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" For bonus trivia: both commanders of that battle have facilities named after them on the campus of the naval academy in Annapolis.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Aluminum hulls have other challenges for warships, not least of which is that they apparently have an unfortunate tendency to melt and catch fire at significantly lower temperatures than steel. This has significant downsides e.g. when hit with an Exocet. Not least because Exocets tend to do damage by bringing a whole bunch of fuel on board at high speed. Their fuses are terrible and detonate the warhead less than half the time, but smacking a bunch of combustible liquid wrapped with steel into a ship at high speed does a lot of damage. Stark and Sheffield both took hits without an explosion and lost a fire main when hot wreckage physically crashed through the pipes. The Stark survived because she had redundancy where HMS Sheffield didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Someone got a link to the spreadsheet? Anyone?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:Anyone? Which one?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
How are we doing in regards to planes? The Vals are doing some good work against enemy shipping, but we're also losing a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Someone got a link to the spreadsheet? Grey Hunter posted:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mr2Rqw8aays4zr64bzcfImN4XxJxgkyb6Qcwme9np0U/edit#gid=946694386 e: This one hasn't been updated in a while, actually. Second edition edit: Last major graph discussion was around here. OpenlyEvilJello fucked around with this message at 17:20 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Mobile Bay was also the site of a significant naval battle in the American civil war most famous for the union commanders order to sail through a minefield saying, "drat the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" Bonus bonus trivia: the commander of the Confederate fleet at Mobile Bay, Franklin Buchanan, had previously been the first superintendent of the Naval Academy.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:e: This one hasn't been updated in a while, actually. Thanks. The ability to improve the charts is severely limited by the requirement to use Google Sheets to generate the charts. There's a lot more that can be done, but it'll only be useful to Grey if he's up for using some third-party charting software. That's probably asking too much. The main improvement was already made in that link - putting japanese always as some shade of red and allies as some shade of blue, and putting the text in the labels into the same order (for example "allied AI and japanese AI", as opposed to "AI allied and japanese AI") but the thread apparently rejected these changes as "confusing" so I dunno, guys.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
The red/blue graph was an improvement in theory, but the decision to fade the AI instead of fading the historical values kinda sabotaged its readability, and it could have used a finer resolution on the grid lines.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:The Stark survived because she had redundancy where HMS Sheffield didn't. Sheffield sank under tow in a gale 6 days after being hit, in calm waters like Persian Gulf she may well have floated indefinitely. Stark was in a friendly port within 24 hours and the counter flooding she required could well have proven ineffective in the South Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
  I need to rebuild my fighter force.  Damage to the runway is beginning to mount.   The range on these things – no damage is caused, but still!  The quiet returns – until I get those troops shipped south, its going to be pretty dull I'm afraid. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
AbleArcher posted:Sheffield sank under tow in a gale 6 days after being hit, in calm waters like Persian Gulf she may well have floated indefinitely. Thank you. I have vague memories of the Sheffield lasting a while, but 6 days is a credit to the RN.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Thanks. It was one dissenting person! Chaotic Neutral posted:The red/blue graph was an improvement in theory, but the decision to fade the AI instead of fading the historical values kinda sabotaged its readability, and it could have used a finer resolution on the grid lines. Yeah, go back to the red and blue color scheme, fix the labels and fade the historical values NOT the AI values and everything is good.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
  Phew.  These are heavy losses.   A rare sight of non-liberators.  Its nice to see some air kills.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Are these turns faster to run?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Yeah, there are a lot of boring plane runs that do no or minimal damage, but overall they are much quicker than "having" to document a bunch of carrier strikes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:17
|
|