Deamon93

Tuccy, on 24 November 2013 - 09:11 AM, said: Thanks for the post. Pity that Regia Marina is still in shadow of other navies, quite often undeservedly... Though in this case I have to say that not building the ship was "good riddance" - it is so very obvious WWI design it would be obsolete the moment it would be commissioned. Better scrap it and build new modern battleships (as Italy did). Well it could have been converted to carrier although the Navy made mistakes back then. They decided to refit four much older battleships(RM Conte di Cavour, RM Giulio Cesare, RM Caio Duilio and RM Andrea Doria) instead of funding the construction of this carrier project and the increase production of the RM Aquila(carrier), RM Sparviero(carrier) and RM Impero(Littorio-class battleship). With three carriers and four Littorio-class battleships plus the Zara-class heavy cruisers the Italian Navy would have been a force to reckon with. Sadly we had conservative officers which refused to implement new technologies until it was too late...

RC_8015, on 23 November 2013 - 10:39 PM, said: I do enjoy, hope you find infos about the carrier version. Im just missing information about the crew. One more point you can edit when you find somthing about it :teethhappy: Anyways, nice post +1 I think that the crew complement is not present because of the fact that she never went into service and only the hull was built. Probably they were still evaluating the exact number of people. Smederevac94, on 23 November 2013 - 10:44 PM, said: GJ mate :honoring: +1 from me :medal: Thanks guys! :honoring:

RedBear87, on 23 November 2013 - 09:36 PM, said: Before the Brits? No. Before the Italians? Maybe. There wasn't much commitment from the other side too, Operation Wunderland is one of the few engagements I can think of where the Germans used large surface ships against the Red Fleet. I don't even know if the Chinese had ships able to form a tech tree. I searched(just in case) and i saw that they a very small fleet composed mainly by foreign vessels(mainly US). I found very little though so i'm not 100% sure about them. As the Russian-German engagement are concerned the Germans never had interests in fighting them. They had mines, subs and Stukas to sunk ships although i think they used mainly mines and Stukas against Russians(at least i don't recall any German sub action in the East Front)

RedBear87, on 23 November 2013 - 09:12 PM, said: Actually you'd better not joke about it. Which doesn't mean that there were none, it just happens that they were usually submarines. Yeah because with my luck they could implement the Chinese before the Brits :trollface: I know they were focused more on submarine warfare which is not present ingame. I was counting only surface ship vs surface ship which was quite rare for Russian after the defeat in 1905

mr3awsome, on 23 November 2013 - 07:19 PM, said: I'm guessing its because the Russian market is bigger than the Italian market Personally i don't like the market way of choosing things. Then let's make the Chinese navy, they are 1.something billion people so why not. Shade1982, on 23 November 2013 - 08:00 PM, said: I don't think it matters really who designed it, more who used it... I can quote many navy battles in which the Italian fleet saw action against the British from 1940 on. I don't even know a single navy engagement between the Russian and someone else. So even if we count the "usage" the Italian Navy beats the Russian one, without counting who designed what. Of course most of these engagements are not so known outside the Italian borders but that's another story

mr3awsome, on 23 November 2013 - 07:01 PM, said: The German influence come in later. I searched better and yeah i found that it was designed by an Italian engineer. Then i really wonder why adding Russia before Italy, that doesn't make a lot of sense

mr3awsome, on 23 November 2013 - 06:48 PM, said: Gangut is Italian based As far as i know it was a German one but maybe i'm wrong. EDIT: Never mind the designer is Italian. So why even adding Russia before Italy if the Russian Navy had ships designed by Italy :trollface:

superflamok, on 23 November 2013 - 05:23 PM, said: i know 1 thing the russian are allways powerfull and the germans have good accurations... Well in tanks maybe although it's not totally exact. In ships i don't think it's even possible to compare the two nations. Moreover most of the Russian ships are foreign designs(Gangut class is German, Kirov class is Italian and so on)

BelRiose, on 22 November 2013 - 06:01 PM, said: Italian High Command said, before Capo Matapan: "Navy don't fight in the night"... :amazed: Good, +1. Thanks! Well the italian leaders weren't the best

RedBear87, on 22 November 2013 - 05:42 PM, said: An incomplete tree is an interesting option, I didn't think about it because I'm used to WoT where a complete tree is certainly within the realm of possibilities. I wonder what they'll do with ships from countries that operated under Allied command during WWII though, maybe it would be preferable to implement them as premium/mini-branches of the USA and UK trees. Well, I guess this is a discussion for another thread. Well we don't know anything about it so it could be done that way also. It's quite though and, personally, i don't think it will be done. We will see :)

RedBear87, on 22 November 2013 - 05:21 PM, said: Before WWII there was even a project for a 5110 tons seaplane carrier (named Sacadura Cabral) which was to be ordered from Italy, but the order was soon cancelled. Still I think they'll have a hard time finding enough high tier BBs and especially CVs, including paper ships; I already have a hard time thinking about German or Italian tier X CVs... Well the EU tech tree should be the collection of all the minor nations, i don't think it's supposed to be complete. Still the EU tech tree(if WG decides to implement it) will be present in game after the main nations so we're speaking of years

It will take quite some time though, i'm sure they will implement the major nations first :)

Portugal had nice ships, not so many though(they were a "minor" nation). I'm sure they could be implemented in the EU tech tree(when it will be implemented)

Smederevac94, on 22 November 2013 - 11:14 AM, said: Gj, nice post :honoring: Thank you! At least i gave some space to something which most of the people don't know ;)

RC_8015, on 22 November 2013 - 11:09 AM, said: Good post, nice to read something about the equipment itselfe, not "only" about different ships. +1 :honoring: Thanks! :honoring:

BelRiose, on 22 November 2013 - 08:57 AM, said: They miss Tashkent (another way to have an italian ship n game even without an italian tech-tree...) http://en.wikipedia....class_destroyer http://forum.worldof...-light-cruiser/ I ask to developer...hope they will... No doubt about Kirov, another italian successful design...best operational USSR warships of WWII where all italian... The Russian Tech Tree is still incomplete, there isn't even a complete branch. Probably the Tashkent will be implemented as the Kirov. By the way while the Tashkent is 100% italian(designed and built in Italy), the Kirov isn't. The Kirov saw modifications in the design phase by Russians to adapt it to the different conditions they had to be used. Moreover all the Kirov-class ships were built in Russian ship yards.

I know her story and i'm wondering why the Spanish decided to go for a ship like that. For centuries they fought against the Royal Navy knowing that building large ships don't pay off with them most of the times. Sure Nelson, the Admiral who damaged her badly twice in a raw, was one of the finest(or most probably the finest) of that era but surely the Santisima Trinidad wasn't suited to fight the English. Too big and with a reduced mobility in comparison to the the English counterparts. Still thanks for the post!

mr3awsome, on 21 November 2013 - 09:11 PM, said: Thats because Russia is 4th/5th with Italy and France 5th/6th. Thats enough ships for about 2 years if not more. Its my thread so I decide what gets posted on the first 3 posts. I know, i was talking about the EU tech tree

superflamok, on 21 November 2013 - 08:27 PM, said: the mosts of the lands are done when i see the tech tree,s... Russia, France and Italy don't have a complete tech tree, two of which(France and Italy) have only one ship. mr3awsome, on 21 November 2013 - 09:05 PM, said: We are. Nothing will be posted here that hasn't come from an official source Still i'm not fond of this idea

superflamok, on 21 November 2013 - 08:06 PM, said: @mr3awsome can u can maybe post the europe tech tree? or is the tech tree not ready? We don't know anything about it. Most probably we won't know anything until the major nations are known and/or implemented

mr3awsome, on 21 November 2013 - 07:19 PM, said: There will probably be 3 different upgrades, a pre war one with the 1.1" auto cannons, the early war refit with some 20mm and 40mm cannons and a late war refit with many, many 20mm and 40mm cannons. The 5" turrets will probably be arranged like in a So Dak 1939. The hulls are different though. Here's the 1920 http://www.navsource...s/01/014911.jpg And here the 1939 http://i.imgur.com/YqvuC.jpg The 1939 design is totally different from the 1920 one.

mr3awsome, on 21 November 2013 - 06:45 PM, said: I'd say hypothetical yet plausible upgrades. And for So Dak 1920 I'd say yeah the Mk 7s would be good to help match Iowa in that respect. Well all the upgrades i said are plausible but yet again WG has to design them from nothing. The upgrade from Mk 2 to Mk 7 is not a problem, the issue are the 5 inch DP and the AA guns. How many should they be and, most important, where should they be located and which AA should WG choose?

I have one question: how it's possible to see a WWI design in high tiers? One example is the South Dakota 1920. Her armor and armament are fine but she's quite slow in comparison to the other ships and her AA armament is non-existent. I think that she will have what-if modules(like AA armament, the 16 inch Mk 7 as an upgrade to the Mk 2, the 5 inch dual purpuse instead of the 6 inch, better engines and so on) but still i would prefer some more "realistic" ships rather than a WWI design overhauled to keep up with newer ones

hani5, on 20 November 2013 - 09:46 AM, said: The ship was 30 years old when it figts against the Germans 1943? He must be without any chance The Sevastopol/Parizhskaya Kommuna never fought Germans head on, neither the other Gangut class did. They were either use in support of the soldiers ashore or left in port. The Sevastopol stayed quite some time in port to avoid the ending of the Marat, sunk by Rudel in 1941.

hani5, on 20 November 2013 - 09:37 AM, said: Is the Sewastopol a ww one or a ww two battleship. Have someone any informations about that ship? She served in both wars but the Gangut class was designed in 1911. Here's the class: http://en.wikipedia....lass_battleship