Well of Souls Forums

Arioch
Terran Ships seem to carry far more weapons for size then Loroi/Umiak ships.

Terran Heavy Cruiser 320m
Weapons
08 Heavy Laser
06 Heavy Mass Driver
08 Point-Defense Laser
04 Missile Tubes
02 Anti-Missile Launchers


Loroi light cruiser ~300m
Weapon Mounts
09 Heavy Blaster
10 Laser Autocannon
01 Warhead Launcher

Small Craft & Ordnance
02 Standard Shuttles


Umiak Light Cruiser 300-400m
Typical Weaponry
02 SR Heavy Plasma Focus
08 SR Medium Plasma Focus
02 6-Cell Torpedo Arrays

Is this because Terran ships are more primitive and each weapon takes up less space.

Or is it because humans, stuff more junk in the trunk, so to speak.

If so for what Reasons?
I can think of a number.

The Umiak are bigger in general then a human, and the Loroi seem to have a need for very large open spaces(From what we have seen) in warships, both of which increase the space required for crew at any given size.

Or while Umiak Focus is defense/hard hitting weapons the Loroi focus on weapon range and speed, do humans focus on shoving as many weapons as possible into any given design.

Could we get specs of a Umiak/Loroi Heavy Cruiser of the same Weight/Tech level of current Terran version?

Would be rather nice to get an idea of general design traits of each species.

Human Warship design theory 101 can be summed up with this.

Class dismissed.

It's possible that shield screens take up space that you could otherwise use for weapons, but would be useless in a long term fight since you'd have to worry about getting one shotted like the Bell if the enemy managed to score a hit.

Majincarne wrote:Human Warship design theory 101 can be summed up with this.
Picture of Iowa class battlethip
Class dismissed.

Actually, no. Other "old-school" human navies had slightly different accents on ship design. Check on the HMS Hood for instance.

GeoModder wrote:Actually, no. Other "old-school" human navies had slightly different accents on ship design. Check on the HMS Hood for instance.

Sinkability?

Bismarck called. It says you need more guns and armor.

Oh yeah, a clash between Bismarck/Tirpitz an Iowa/Missouri! In the Arctic Ocean! That would have been veeery interesting to see.
I´m pretty sure the japanese surrender would have been signed on another ship after that...


OnT.:

BattleRaptor wrote:Arioch
Terran Ships seem to carry far more weapons for size then Loroi/Umiak ships.
...

Is this because Terran ships are more primitive and each weapon takes up less space.

That´s what i suppose. This is the very first generation of human ships, without any combat experience and on a primitive tech level.

BattleRaptor wrote:Could we get specs of a Umiak/Loroi Heavy Cruiser of the same Weight/Tech level of current Terran version?

Would be rather nice to get an idea of general design traits of each species.

I second that.

Trantor wrote:I´m pretty sure the japanese surrender would have been signed on another ship after that...

Iowa class has more and bigger main guns and thicker armor, additionally there's a very good chance that their fire-control system was superior (it was vastly superior to the Japanese fire-control at least). Why exactly do you think they would lose?

fredgiblet wrote:

Trantor wrote:I´m pretty sure the japanese surrender would have been signed on another ship after that...

Iowa class has more and bigger main guns

...depending on direction.

fredgiblet wrote:and thicker armor

Quantity vs. Quality.
British 16" shells weren´t able to pierce Bismarcks citadel even on point-blank-range.

Edit: I just looked it up: Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).

fredgiblet wrote:additionally there's a very good chance that their fire-control system was superior (it was vastly superior to the Japanese fire-control at least). Why exactly do you think they would lose?

Bismarcks fire-control was AFAIK the most advanced of it´s time, SK 34/C was the most precise big gun ever related to moa, german navy´s tactics were more aggressive than us navy´s (absence of Admiral Lütjens assumed), both ships were especially equipped for severe icing conditions (Arctic Ocean Theater) and last but not least Tirpitz carried 24 long-range torpedoes.

Remember: Umiak-Bismarck made very short work of Bellarmine-Hood...


...and to not let it getting too serious: Of course the american aircraftcarriers would have made very short work of both (and only) german battleships in either case. War is a matter of resources.

This is a bit like comparing the armaments of a WWII heavy cruiser (usually 9x 8" and 8x 5" guns) and a modern guided missile cruiser (usually 2x 5" guns and 2x missile launchers) and wondering why the modern cruiser has so few weapons. The two ships are roughly the same length, but the masses are very different, and the two ships were designed in different eras and with different technologies for different roles. The Terran heavy cruiser is a "capital ship" in its own little world, whereas the Loroi and Umiak light cruisers are escorts.

which is why I asked for example of Umiak/Loroi Ship of the same class/tech level.

Trantor wrote:...depending on direction.

?

The Iowa has 9 guns the Bismarck has 8, I suppose you could argue that the Bismarck has one extra gun pointing backwards but that's a pretty thin argument to make.

Quantity vs. Quality.
British 16" shells weren´t able to pierce Bismarcks citadel even on point-blank-range.

Can you find a report of an Iowa-class battleship being penetrated by a 15 inch shell? My understanding is that pretty much ANY WW2-era big gun fight with equivalent capital ships would have ended up being a slogging match

Bismarcks fire-control was AFAIK the most advanced of it´s time

It's my understanding that the Bismarck had superior optical FC but the Iowa had superior radar and radar-optical integration.

SK 34/C was the most precise big gun ever related to moa, german navy´s tactics were more aggressive than us navy´s (absence of Admiral Lütjens assumed), both ships were especially equipped for severe icing conditions (Arctic Ocean Theater) and last but not least Tirpitz carried 24 long-range torpedoes.

Honestly I don't see much of this being relevant, aggressiveness isn't always a good thing, icing gear isn't really relevant to combat and torpedoes in WW2 were unguided so long-range torpedoes don't stand a great chance of hitting much.

Remember: Umiak-Bismarck made very short work of Bellarmine-Hood...

The Bismarck soundly defeated a outdated enemy ship of a lesser class? Color me impressed! Your comparison is apt, the Hood wouldn't have stood a chance against pretty much ANY modern battleship, Yamato, Iowa, Bismarck or whatever class was new in Britain at the time.

Might also have something to do with Terran design principles vs. Loroi principles. From what we saw in the intro, Terran ships are built like submarines, ie max space for weapons and systems. If the Loroi adapted the same way they could probably fit at least two torpedo tubes in the vaulted bridge alone.

fredgiblet wrote:

Trantor wrote:...depending on direction.

The Iowa has 9 guns the Bismarck has 8, I suppose you could argue that the Bismarck has one extra gun pointing backwards but that's a pretty thin argument to make.

No, you miss the point: 9 vs 8 only counts if can bring all cannons to bear.
And there are also 2 other important things: 4 Turrets vs 3 (redundance and better aiming) and rate of fire: 3,125/min for the SK34, only 2 for the Mark 7. Makes it 25 to 18. Your call.

Can you find a report of an Iowa-class battleship being penetrated by a 15 inch shell?

Did someone fire one on them?

It's my understanding that the Bismarck had superior optical FC but the Iowa had superior radar and radar-optical integration.

I remember that the Mk 38 radar was faulty, also it wasn´t integrated in the turrets. Cutting the lines would have rendered them finally useless.

SK 34/C was the most precise big gun ever related to moa, german navy´s tactics were more aggressive than us navy´s (absence of Admiral Lütjens assumed), both ships were especially equipped for severe icing conditions (Arctic Ocean Theater) and last but not least Tirpitz carried 24 long-range torpedoes.

Honestly I don't see much of this being relevant, aggressiveness isn't always a good thing

Ask the Brits...
Aggressiveness is meant in context of "having initiative".

icing gear isn't really relevant to combat

Well, in the arctic sea it is...

and torpedoes in WW2 were unguided

Not all.

so long-range torpedoes don't stand a great chance of hitting much.

I respectfully doubt that. Remember the record torpedo-run from U-183 at RAF Gan? Through that tiny gap in the anti-torpedo nets?

Remember: Umiak-Bismarck made very short work of Bellarmine-Hood...

The Bismarck soundly defeated a outdated enemy ship of a lesser class?

??
Both Ships were in the 50.000tons-class, both had 8 38cm guns. Ok, she was outdated. But that only came to the Brit´s mind when it was too late.

Color me impressed! Your comparison is apt, the Hood wouldn't have stood a chance against pretty much ANY modern battleship, Yamato, Iowa, Bismarck or whatever class was new in Britain at the time.

Whatever.
Still, chances were better for the Bismarck-class ships.

Hood was a battlecruiser, not designed to go toe-to-toe with enemy battleships. She was a glass cannon, built with heavy guns but without the armor necessary to take the kind of punishment a similarly armed enemy could inflict. Whatever their displacement, the design doctrine of the two ships was very different.

CptWinters wrote:Hood was a battlecruiser, not designed to go toe-to-toe with enemy battleships. She was a glass cannon, built with heavy guns but without the armor necessary to take the kind of punishment a similarly armed enemy could inflict. Whatever their displacement, the design doctrine of the two ships was very different.

No wonder. She was a relic of WWI.

On the topic of "Iowa vs Bismarck"

The answer is obvious, none, the submarine took them both down! sneaky sub

Trantor wrote:No wonder. She was a relic of WWI.

I know. You seemed confused why fredge called Hood a "lesser" class.

Trantor wrote:No, you miss the point: 9 vs 8 only counts if can bring all cannons to bear.

That much is obvious. How often would that not be the case? The Iowas turrets had a roughly 300 degree field of fire

and rate of fire: 3,125/min for the SK34, only 2 for the Mark 7. Makes it 25 to 18. Your call.

My call is that I'd like to see practical numbers from actual combat rather than theoretical max rate of fire. It would probably favor the Bismarck still due to her smaller shells but probably not by as much.

Did someone fire one on them?

Not to my knowledge, which means all we have to go on is the thickness of armor, which goes in the favor of the Iowa.

I remember that the Mk 38 radar was faulty, also it wasn´t integrated in the turrets. Cutting the lines would have rendered them finally useless.

Citation for the Mark 38? I'd be interested to read more about that. Also the turrets had backup fire-control systems for if the lines were cut (though they weren't as good as the standard system).

and torpedoes in WW2 were unguided

Not all.

The vast majority were.

I respectfully doubt that. Remember the record torpedo-run from U-183 at RAF Gan? Through that tiny gap in the anti-torpedo nets?

Stationary targets? You could hit a non-maneuvering target with a mass driver from across a star system, against a maneuvering target it's not so easy.

??
Both Ships were in the 50.000tons-class, both had 8 38cm guns.

The Hood, as pointed out by CptWinters, was a battlecruiser, the Bismarck was a battleship, usually battlecruisers fall below battleships on the hierarchy of ass-kicking. I expect that if a ship was Built to Hood's specs around WW2 it would be 5000 tons lighter and that the extra weight was a legacy of her WW1 design.

fredgiblet wrote:

and rate of fire: 3,125/min for the SK34, only 2 for the Mark 7. Makes it 25 to 18. Your call.

My call is that I'd like to see practical numbers from actual combat rather than theoretical max rate of fire. It would probably favor the Bismarck still due to her smaller shells but probably not by as much.

Come on, this is cheap.

Did someone fire one on them?

Not to my knowledge, which means all we have to go on is the thickness of armor, which goes in the favor of the Iowa.

Seen my edit?

Edit: I just looked it up: Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).

370>307.

Trantor wrote:Come on, this is cheap.

I was reading the wiki about the Bismarck and it mentioned that the sustained rate of fire observed at Denmark Strait was 1 shot per minute.

Edit: I just looked it up: Armoured Belt: Iowa 307mm, Bismarck 320mm (up to 370mm RHA-equivalent).
370>307.

You're comparing RHA-equivalent versus the straight number. Also:

Iowa
Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm),[5]
Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290 mm),[5]
Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439 mm),[5]
Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm),[5]
Decks: 7.5 in (190 mm)[5]

Bismarck
Belt: 145–320 millimetres (5.7–13 in)
Deck: 110–120 millimetres (4.3–4.7 in)
Bulkheads: 220 millimetres (8.7 in)
Turrets: 130–360 millimetres (5.1–14 in)
Barbettes: 342 millimetres (13.5 in)
Conning tower: 360 millimetres (14 in)

Belt slightly thicker at max
Bulkheads notably thinner
Barbettes thinner at max, thicker at minimum
Turrets significantly thinner
Decks notably thinner