RedBear87

Deamon93, on 04 December 2013 - 04:44 PM, said: True but the Nisshin does look like a half cruiser half seaplane carrier. To me the proper classification is AV but i don't think they will change it ^^ Again, there's a difference between AV, seaplane tender, and CVS, seaplane carrier. I'm probably the only one anal enough to care about it, but still...

Deamon93, on 04 December 2013 - 04:24 PM, said: Well it's not easy to classify that ship without an abomination, it's half cruiser and half seaplane carrier. It's a seaplane carrier full stop. Akagi was equipped with 20cm guns but I don't see people calling her a CA/CV. Anyway, in the QA Ev1n said we're back to Shinano at tier X... EDIT: I didn't read the following replies, forget it.

BelRiose, on 04 December 2013 - 02:43 PM, said: In japanese tech tree, for tier IV CA, "Nisshin": you mean this armoured cruiser, I hope... http://en.wikipedia....cruiser_Nisshin That abomination of classification says "CL/AV", not CA, it's this ship, she's 100% Nihon-jin.

atariforce74, on 03 December 2013 - 10:24 PM, said: Aircraft carried: AV-8B Harrier II, F-35 (planned), CH-47, Sea King, NH-90. For better or worse Spain isn't part of the F-35 program and the eventual acquisition of the F-35 is something that will only be decided in the future AFAIK (probably a far future given the current situation and the Harriers won't last beyond 2020-2025), it's been considered but it's not currently "planned". It's interesting that the Australian ships based on the same design won't apparently embark F-35B even though Australia is a level 3 partner, I guess they could always reverse their choice at a later moment...

tomas144, on 03 December 2013 - 09:43 PM, said: I found this comic on the internet :teethhappy: This made my day, Polandball FTW.

Angola's government officials must be completely out of their minds if they're really going to buy a ship as expensive to maintain as this one, it would end up like the one Spain sold to Thailand in the 90s.

mr3awsome, on 01 December 2013 - 03:43 PM, said: Depends how fast the carrier chooses to go. Going by this logic one of the supposed issues of submarines, slow speed, is a moot point... actually that's not really unlike the case of subs, they're forcing one ship to perform something it wasn't supposed to do. Anyway, I guess that while under attack the carrier will try to go for combat speed and that's when your little 19th century vintage escort will start to lag behind in few minutes.

A 16 knots "CLAA" as tier V/VI.... I wonder if it's really feasible, I think most other ships at that tier are faster (even those clumsy American battleships and converted tankers), an escort should *at least* be capable of keeping up with the other ships.

I'm wondering why they called the Japanese top tier heavy cruiser as "CA1941A", that's almost certainly Ibuki class (called Cruiser A during planning and formally ordered in 1941), sure it's not fundamentally wrong but the lead ship received a name and we could just use that instead; anyway if I'm correct about CA1941A then logically Mogami (203cm) should be tier IX, unless all the infos about the Japanese CA have become outdated. EDIT: screw it all, it's a different paper (yay...) ship planned for the deleted Maru 6.

Thanks everyone, corrections or questions are more than welcome. RC_8015, on 28 November 2013 - 09:45 AM, said: Do you understand japanese or did you translate it?I can read kana a little, but kanji are beyond me; I used Japanese wikipedia mainly when I wanted to check out contradicting or vague statements of other sources and to integrate the general characteristics' list.. I think it's puzzling that so few pictures of Unryu survived, I've been searching for some more pictures but to no avail. Anyway I exchanged the large B/W picture of Unryu for a colourised one, I also remembered to add sources for the pictures. . Here are some colourised pictures and illustrations of Unryu's sisters, I can't add them to the OP because of image limits: Katsuragi as depicted on Aoshima's kit . . Katsuragi's schematics . . Amagi's schematics . . . . .

The whole document section of that website is really interesting, thanks a lot for sharing it.

BelRiose, on 26 November 2013 - 10:53 AM, said: It's a floating ad that said to the rest of the world: "Hey, if you want a big modern aircraft-carrier, we can do it if you pay!" :trollface: Unfortunately there's no one interested in anything like that after Brazil bought Foch and India bough Baku; also it doesn't really help that to make use of a similar carrier they would need to buy American hardware (F-35B) which is extremely expensive, difficult to import for countries without strong ties to the US and is impossible to maintain without American assistance (India is especially sensible to this last topic because of past experience during her conflicts with Pakistan).

mr3awsome, on 25 November 2013 - 05:45 PM, said: Either that or Chitose's AV form will be tier 4 (like they did with Langely) On a different line? Another possibility would be merging all 4 (3+1 actually, Chitose and Chiyoda are very similar) fleet seaplane carriers into one, but they were quite different from each other in terms of displacement and equipment. Daimon_Frey_89, on 25 November 2013 - 06:28 PM, said: Team Europe and South America's tech treesIsn't it simply too early for them? We barely know one ship each for the Italian and France tech tree...

It looks like carriers will rule the waves, it sounds promising. Especially because I don't expect much in terms of teamplay from my future fellow players in random battle, that's the only thing that can stop a massive air attack launched from far away.

Daimon_Frey_89, on 25 November 2013 - 05:01 PM, said: Chitose is a CV on tier 5Only from 1943, she was a seaplane carrier similar to Nisshin but equipped with hybrid diesel/steam turbines propulsion (Nisshin was diesel powered) before that. I was imagining Chitose at tier IV as seaplane carrier, since I doubt that at the same tier she could work as both seaplane carrier (basic configuration) and light carrier (top configuration). EDIT: the hull classification of Nisshin should be CVS (before 1957 it indicated seaplane carriers, it was never used by the US Navy because they never fielded any seaplane carrier, only tenders; after that date it was used for ASW carriers), not some weird hybrid, but whatever...

Pichu_Trainer, on 25 November 2013 - 04:31 PM, said: AV-CL = Seaplane Carrier/Cruiser I know, but she wasn't a conversion or hybrid design, just a seaplane carrier whose hull was built around the lines of a light cruiser; I don't think it's necessary to come up with a similar classification.

mr3awsome, on 25 November 2013 - 03:50 PM, said: AV-CL Nisshin to tier 4 AV-CL? Teit picked a peculiar classification here... Oh well, it's nice to know Nisshin will have her chance to shine again, I wonder what they'll do with seaplane carrier Chitose and her slower sister Mizuho, though. Maybe I should try and pester Ev1n about it...

CommissionerJan, on 25 November 2013 - 01:13 AM, said: That whole project always reminds me of a James Bond movie. Well, we're talking about THAT Nixon. At least it's nice to know that the recovered bodies of the Russian sailors were treated respectfully.

Raider_, on 24 November 2013 - 08:21 PM, said: I wonder if this is the ship that the Royal Navy would "borrow" if required, under the (vague) treaty Britain and France entered into recently? I read some stuff about it a pair of years ago, but I don't think that it's really feasible now, especially because after the UK gave up (once again) on CATOBAR carriers, there would be no interoperability between British and French equipment; also I read it's possible that Britain will operate both Queen Elizabeth carriers with the STOBAR configuration. Anyway, France has been thinking about building a second carrier since forever, but I wonder why they sold Foch to Brazil if they really needed two carriers. RC_8015, on 24 November 2013 - 08:23 PM, said: No prejudice, but the french have the first nuclear aircraft carrier I mean, normal the pride of the USA forces them to have the first and biggest every military unit of all kinds. Anyways, nice post, +1 Nuclear powered aircraft carriers operating together with a fleet of conventionally powered ships always looked a little silly to me.

RC_8015, on 23 November 2013 - 06:11 PM, said: The back looks like a point to aim at, as if it would mean "Please shoot here!" :teethhappy:Back? Are you referring to this That's just the stern section being launched from Riva Trigoso, it was towed to Muggiano where it was welded to the bow built there; that Italian flag is in the middle of the completed carrier. RC_8015, on 23 November 2013 - 06:11 PM, said: Why did they build a ship which didnt even fit into the destinated habour? I mean, they must have knew how big the ship adnd how deep the dock was. She does fit the harbour, it's the support infrastructure which is not adequate, so she stayed at La Spezia for her fitting, but her home port now is Taranto (the base of COMFORAL, the Italian "blue fleet").

mr3awsome, on 23 November 2013 - 11:33 PM, said: There is no hope for a Chinese tree, they simply didn't have the ships (paper or otherwise).I wouldn't be too sure about paper ships considering it's a pretty obscure matter; anyway there's also the possibility of an incomplete tree without some branches. mr3awsome, on 23 November 2013 - 11:33 PM, said: A couple of premiums is the best they can do. The problem is that couple of ships, actually at least three afaik, would need to appear in the Japanese tree as captured ships (Ning Hai/Ioshima, Ping Hai/Yasoshima and Yat Sen/Atada), that's certainly not the best way to "please" that billion of potential Chinese customers.

Deamon93, on 23 November 2013 - 09:21 PM, said: Yeah because with my luck they could implement the Chinese before the Brits :trollface:Before the Brits? No. Before the Italians? Maybe. Deamon93, on 23 November 2013 - 09:21 PM, said: I was counting only surface ship vs surface ship which was quite rare for Russian after the defeat in 1905 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.

Deamon93, on 23 November 2013 - 08:04 PM, said: Then let's make the Chinese navy, they are 1.something billion people so why not. Actually you'd better not joke about it. Deamon93, on 23 November 2013 - 08:04 PM, said: I don't even know a single navy engagement between the Russian and someone else.Which doesn't mean that there were none, it just happens that they were usually submarines.

Deamon93, on 22 November 2013 - 05:31 PM, said: 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 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.