CommissionerJan

I hope we get the Finnish bush camo in the game. Noone will suspect the floating trees to actually be warship. ;)

Well, drawings would also be nice. I tried googling for manuals (becasue I figured those might have instructive drawings), but came up with nothing really related.

This is sort of the odd one out. It'll be interesting to see how they are going to work ingame.

This is very interesting. Do you happen to have more pics of how things look through the eyepieces before/after range is found?

That's pretty interesting, thanks for sharing.

That hull form is making a comeback, look at a picture of the new USS Zumwalt. And I hope that ships like this one will be included in the game, maybe as low-Tier premium vessels. They'd bring a lot of diversity.

Kupniula, on 06 November 2013 - 10:08 AM, said: The problem with greece and europe tech tree is, that they will be add last (still waiting for eu tech tree on wot :/ ) so it will be in... 2016-2020? :P Japan and US at release, Britiain and Germany a bit later, then France and Italy. . .yeah, that will take a few years.

mr3awsome, on 02 December 2013 - 06:49 PM, said: Here's another one of the carrier (image removed) Are the forward cranes meant to handle seaplanes?

This might be a good opponent for the tutorial. . .well no, it's probably too much work to make a special 3d model just for that single use. :(.

I'm sure both the BB and CV will eventually turn up. . .or at least Ihope they will.

I just looked at the other big guns thread, and now I'm going to bump this.

Nice info. Unfortunately, we won't see those guns in the game for quite a while.

The style of writing is a bit. . .peculiar. Still, and interesting article.

That whole project always reminds me of a James Bond movie.

That is pretty impressive.

It'S kinda sad that it will probably take years until those ships appear in a European tech tree. WoT has had talks about such a tree for two years now, and they are still working on it.

Querulous, on 07 November 2013 - 08:44 PM, said: This ship will be useful for the Russian CV line. I guess they will all be paper..... We will see a lot of paper projects in the carrier lines for the Soviet and German tech trees. . .otherwise there would be a lot of empty Tiers, I think.

Those stacked casemate guns always looked weird to me.

It really is tragic that she was broken up.

Nesher, on 24 October 2012 - 09:45 AM, said: Well, to be completly honest, I don't belive in the 150 degrees wide firing sector for the main battery (proposed here) either, the secondary battery would be in for some serious shock waves from the B-tower, especially if the ship is steaming forwards at some speed... Well. . .the arrangement is only 'proposed'. . .the other arrangement (marked 'previous') is the one used on the Iowa, and that worked. On the other hand, blast damage from heavy guns was something that just happened, sometimes.

Smederevac94, on 23 October 2012 - 01:37 PM, said: I saw that site, and I found another picture than the one above. In this site I found another design of Montana with Missouri. http://media.photobu...mparisontop.png Assuming the drawing for the Montana are meant to be a teh same scale as the one for the Iowa class ship (and they appear to be). . .they are again pure fantasy. The Montana design was only about 20 meters longer than an Iowa.

Smederevac94, on 23 October 2012 - 10:10 AM, said: Of course it's a fantasy, but it is the best if not the strongest blueprint for tier 10 battleship for U.S. Navy. I'm afraid you're in for a bit of a disappointment then: The drawing is fantasy, it's not a Montana. The hull is different. If you want an approximate line drawing of the design, I'd suggest looking at this page: http://www.history.n...htp/bb/bb67.htm

The top-down drawing is pure fantasy. . .just look at the number of 5" DP mounts. .The Montana design has 10, but on the fantasy drawing there are 16.

I guess the increased AA on the older battleships was just added over time, so if the Montanas had been built they would also have been filled with more and more light AA over the years.

Conte_Vincero, on 09 October 2012 - 11:58 AM, said: Ah yes, missed that. Yes 3 shafts is in itself odd, as it means that the boiler rooms will have to extend further into the ship. As far as I know all other countries used 4. It was the same with Bismark, and with Bayern. so it just looks like unimaginative design AFAIK all German battleships used three shafts. . .only the battlecruisers had four. The battlecruisers however had tandem rudders. two rudders in line. I have no clue why the HSF and KM did it that way.