Classic British Flight Sim

Effoh wrote:Why, then, was the Texas built with reciprocating steam engines? According
to Jane's Fighting Ships, 1943-44, “Builders of turbine engines in the U.S. refused
to adopt standards laid down by the Navy Dept. Accordingly in these ships * a
reversion was made to reciprocating engines to show turbine builders that the Navy
Dept. was determined to have turbines built to official specification, or else the
older type of engines would be taken up again."

Interesting, Colin. It seems an extravagant way of making a point doesn't it ? Did the turbine makers ( Curtiss ? ) conform to the USN's standards, or did they call the USN's bluff, knowing that it wouldn't be able to order steam-reciprocating ships indefinitely while the other navies of the world moved ahead with turbine propulsion.

At the time, too, the reciprocating engine had proven to be more fuel-efficient than the direct-drive turbine, especially at cruising speeds.'

I wondered if that might be a factor. As it turned out, the reciprocating 'cruising' engines on the destroyers mentioned above were removed after a short while as being useless. The ships themselves weren't terribly successful either.

Soooo...just getting back to World of Warships for a moment - do they have unbuilt what-if ships like the Montana class ? WW1 ships ? Pre-Dreadnought ships ?

I'll do a little more research on the choice of reciprocating steam versus turbines tomorrow when I've got some time, but my understanding is that the Texas and New York were built with the idea of being moderate speed ships, designed more around convoy escort than independent task force operation. Indeed, the initial deployments of both ships during WWI and the interwar years saw them doing exactly this kind of service. In this mode, range is a great advantage since the ship would require fewer refueling stops and thus be able to escort more convoys in a given time than other ships which might have shorter range. With the lack of Dreadnaughts and Heavy Cruisers in US Navy service during that time, the additional range was a godsend.

Okay, so some quick research found this -

Initially, designs called for a 14 percent increase in power to 32,000 shp (24,000 kW) over the 28,000 shp (21,000 kW) of the preceding class. However, it was discovered that greater propulsive efficiency of the reciprocating engine allowed a reduction in installed power, needing only 28,100 shp to make 21 knots.

This statement is attributed to the following book -

Friedman, Norman (1985). U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-715-1. OCLC 12214729.

It's also interesting to note that the class originally used 14 coal-fired boilers when built, but when converted to oil 1926, they only needed 6 oil-fired boilers to produce the needed steam for the engines.

When comparing the Wyoming-class versus the New York-class, it's also interesting to note that the former had a cruising range of 6,700nm @ 10 knots while the latter had a 7,060nm range @ 10 knots while displacing an additional 1,000 long tons and being 10 feet longer and 5 feet wider.

Thanks for the info Chris, very interesting. I never sailed with reciprocating engines used as propulsion, but on the older ships, we had them as auxiliary machinery, driving pumps and so forth. Given my experience with those, I dread to think what it was like with them as main engines. I read recently that on the higher speed Royal Navy warships, there was so much sh*t, steam and snot flying around that they wore oilskins in the engine room. The R.N. tried encasing them, in so far as was possible, but it wasn't hugely successful.

Fascinating stuff - and I bet Airboatr is thrilled that the conversation has once again turned to ships.

Right chaps, I've installed WoW, and in my first training mission, my Japanese destroyer sank two USN destroyers, two cruisers and a battleship. Okay, it was training, and my ship was invulnerable, so no worries.

What do I think of it so far ? Worth playing further, but Storm Eagle Studios' 'Distant Guns' might be more up my street. However, I'll give WoW a fair chance before scrapping it.

Nice one Paul but with a record like that it's time to leave the training ground! WoW is good fun and it's possible to get to level 5 in each Navy without expending too much effort. Cash is another matter, although it is possible to spend only a little to get those much needed spare berths. WoW is regularly updated with new/revised ships and weather effects and maps. I've made good progress with US, Russian and German fleets (at level 5 in each) but the jump to level 6 is considerable and that's where the time v money equation comes in.

Hello again, Chris. I'm keeping WoW updated, exploring it bit by bit, and I must admit the bug is starting to bite. The ship models really are superb, aren't they. Still not sure about the gameplay aspects, but taking it for what it is, there's a lot of fun to be had. I certainly won't be uninstalling it.

It's a fine game Paul. Getting to level 4 is easy - if you're a skinflint like me and plays for free getting to level 5 and beyond takes serious dedication!

ChrisHunt wrote:It's a fine game Paul. Getting to level 4 is easy - if you're a skinflint like me and plays for free getting to level 5 and beyond takes serious dedication!

Yes, I'm a skinflint like you, and will follow your path to naval fame.

As I'm slowly but surely becoming addicted to this game, I thought I'd show this, one of my ships, the cruiser HMS Weymouth of 1910. It's no great shakes in the WoWs ship herarchy, but what does impress me about it is the detailed modelling. It's just lovely to look at and pan around.