Widar_Thule

What makes the 1627 "Polish" navy victory at Oliwa even more interesting is that the ships have German names and that the "Polish" Admiral was a Dutchman: Arend Dijckman, nicknamed the "Polish" Nelson in Poland. The "Polish" ships seem to have been built in the then ethnic German city of Danzig, so that also raises the question of whether the crews of the ships were ethnic Germans or Poles. Not to mention that Danzig had from 1530 until 1945 a community of ethnic Dutchman as well. Hmmm back to the "Polish" Signal Flag... chance of detonation 100% might be better maybe then? I guess only one Signal flag is really appropriate for a WOWS "Polish" navy Flag Signal: U for Uniform - "You are running into danger." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_maritime_signal_flags

I am well aware that his remark was sarcastic and some might argue even russophobic. You appear however to have missed my sarcasm in my response to that though. Look up "Polish navy victory". It will take you back to 1627... Now how about that Polish Signal Flag?

You can contact the Italian author of the article on the kbismarck forum, the article is an english language translation. Yes things can get confusing, I will repeat: minimal for us is not minimal for a professional gunnery officer. They were not playing a game. So I can understand the author of the article writing "minimal" but I myself do not interpret the article author's "minimal" as being "meaningless" in terms of real world gunnery calculations. I assume you have also read the War Diary of the Prinz Eugen, specifically the part written by the gunnery officer of the Prinz Eugen, Jasper? http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip I point to page 38 and 39. It is best to read the German language original part, although the english language translation is pretty decent. When Jasper switched Prinz Eugen's guns from Hood to Prince of Wales that was before Hood was mortally hit and exploded. At that time the distance between Hood and Prince of Wales and their course was about the same as when Bismarck changed his fire to Prince of Wales a minute or so later when Hood blew up. So Jasper when switching target let Prinz Eugen fire a full salvo at Prince of Wales, followed by a 4-hektometer (ranging group straddle ladder) half-salvo. Only after watching the fall of the 4-hektogruppe (half) salvo could he conclude that he was zeroed in (eingeschossen) on Prince of Wales and only then did he go over to Wirkungsschießen (fire for effect) after which he noticed two hits on Prince of Wales. So it was not just a matter of swinging the guns a little to the left from Hood to Prince of Wales and boom voila a straddle. Jasper was ordered to switch Prinz Eugen's fire from Hood to Prince of Wales at about 05:58 and at about 05:59 had his main guns zeroed in (straddle and hits). At about 06:01 Hood blew up and Schneider then immediately switched Bismarck's fire to Prince of Wales following the same standard firing procedure Jasper had used when switching Prinz Eugen's main guns to Prince of Wales. At about 06:01 to 06:02 Prince of Wales retired from the engagment which translates into several violent course changes by Prince of Wales and as a result renewed 4-Hektogruppen (ranging group straddle ladder) half-salvo's would have been required for Bismarck and Prinz Eugen to remain "zeroed in" due to these radical course changes of Prince of Wales. Prinz Eugen was, according to Jasper, ordered to open fire on Hood at about 05:55 and he then fired a full (spotting and gun warming) salvo but he could not determine if the shell splashes he saw were from Prinz Eugen due to a fire calculator failure. The fire calculator among other things gives a signal just before the (individual) shells will impact, and this allows for precise determination of whether (the individual) shell splashes observed belong to the 20 cm artillery. Because of that fire calculator failure he fired another full salvo which he again could not use for observation. Jasper then fired a 4-Hektogruppe (ranging group straddle ladder) half salvo which he could use for observation (so the fire calculator now had given the required signal) of which he noted that two were hits and two were long. Jasper also notes a salvo of Bismarck's main guns straddling Prince of Wales at about 06:01 incidentally, which probably was Bismarck's first main gun fire directed at Prince of Wales. So Bismarck without a doubt hit Hood with his 3rd (half) salvo that he fired at her and probably straddled Prince of Wales with the first (half) salvo he fired at her and then without a doubt hit her with his next (half) salvo. At that point Prince of Wales was already retiring. It took about 3-4 minutes for Hood to fully disappear below the waves after the ~06:00/06:01 explosion aboard her. According to a British navy document concerning the interrogation of prisoners of war of Bismarck in which data from the British side was also incorporated, the commander of Norfolk had this to say concerning Bismarck's fire on Hood (page 14, 3rd paragraph): "The Commanding officer of H.M.S. “Norfolk“ states that “Bismarck’s” first salvo was 100 yards short and that the second salvo straddled and hit." http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/survivor-reports.pdf

Hmm I see. That XGE Flag Signal was used to prevent about 2400+ Russian sailors from going down with their ships in 1905 at Tsushima. Would you say that a reduction of repair costs would be approriate then for Signal Flag XGE in WOWS? And while we are at it, what famous Polish navy Flag Signal would you like to see introduced in WOWS and with what bonus?

You might have overlooked the sentence directly behind the one you quoted: "The Bismarck meanwhile had changed its target to the Prince of Wales. Since the British battleship was very close to the wreckage of the Hood, the needed corrections were very minimal. The seventh salvo of the German battleship (turrets A+B and C+D) was fired to acquire range and ladder from around 15,000 meters" Schneider did not find that it was minimal the shift in target, since he resorted to firing ranging half-salvo's at Prince of Wales, the target would be ranged again to be sure of the corect firing solution. Schneider was not just guessing like we do in WOWS. Any professional gunnery officer when switching target would follow the usual gunnery procedure to not waste precious ammunition of which any ship has a limited amount of. If one looks at the images and movie of Hood and Prince of Wales they are not exactly sailing right next to each other like two people standing shoulder to shoulder. Our "minimal" was not a professional gunnery officer's minimal. It was not a case of oh let us just move a our guns a tad to the left to hit Prince of Wales. Not to mention that Prince of Wales made several course changes after the loss of Hood, and when the target drastically changes course one would resort to (ranging) half-salvo's in order not to waste ammunition. Hood was mortally hit at about 06:00, blew up about 06:01 and the order to retire on Prince of Wales was given between about 06:01 and 06:02 if I remember correctly. Here at 5:39 is the well known movie sequence shot after Hood was sunk. The distance between Prince of Wales (making thick black smoke) and Hood's burning fuel (lighter smoke from fire) is significant for gunnery. Specifically here is Prince of Wales in the distance straddled by a Bismarck half-salvo and firing back near the very end of the engagement (note the water columns around Prince of Wales appearing just before the flashes from Prince of Wales' guns). http://i.imgur.com/yajTsxV.mp4 @ Trainspite It would be interesting to have, a British battle cruiser line in WOWS. Alas I do not think we can expect a British battle cruiser line in WOWS in the next two years, that is if they even make one at all. And waiting that long for Hood would be a shame in my opinion. I understand that paying real world money for Hood is not all that interesting to many people, but on the other hand most people spend more on a tank of weekend trip gasoline or a dinner and evening out without a second thought. When you buy Hood you can use it for years to come in WOWS and you can use it now. The game I mentioned earlier, Atlantic Fleet, costs 10 Euros and gives you Hood, Renown and Repulse now, nothing needs to be "unlocked". I do not mind paying for a ship in WOWS if the alternative is wasting countless hours using ships that I do not want in the first place to get a ship that I do want. You cannot buy your time on this planet, but you can save time in WOWS by buying a ship you like and using it now. @ mr3awsome Mr. Breyer includes a Tiger sister ship named Leopard requested as part of 1912 funding provisions, which was postoned until 1914 and thereafter cancelled. He also states that the sixth ship of the Queen Elizabeth battleship class, Agincourt, was to be the replacement for Leopard as far as funding provisions were concerned, this ship was cancelled when war broke out however. I doubt Mr. Breyer made all of this up looking at the general quality of his work.

British battlecruisers: - Invincible class of three ships - Indefatigble class of three ships - Tiger class of two ships, only one completed - Renown class of two ships (nicknamed "HMS Refit" and "HMS Repair" also known as Renown and Repulse) - Admiral class of four ships, only one completed (nicknamed "the largest submarine in the Royal Navy" also known as Hood) - 1921 class battlecruiser (G3) That makes six classes total. The three Large Light Cruisers of the Courageous class were not battle cruisers and were later converted to aircraft carriers.

@ Capra 76 Well there was the battle cruiser 1921, an ugly design... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3_battlecruiser And the St. Andrew class battleships which were designed along with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N3-class_battleship The Americans had the Lexington battle cruiser class and the Japanese of course the Amagi battle cruiser class, none of these four classes were ever completed as designed. The fast battleship won the day over the battle cruiser as you noted. But WOWS can make anything they want of course since Amagi is in WOWS and quite effective at that. @ GrossadmiralThrawn Admiral Graf Spee would be nice if the ship is made fun to play in WOWS, which I seriously doubt when looking at the German cruiser line as is. Having played through the German cruiser line up till Tier 7 Yorck I have my doubts that any German cruiser will be fun to play. Some are nice for sado masochists, like Yorck and especially Karlsruhe. The others are moderately effective when you know your place, in the rear with the gear hiding behind the "big" sisters of the fleet. So I have my doubts that the Admiral Graf Spee will be fun to play in WOWS if the ship is given the usual WOWS "German cruiser" treatment. When on the receiving end of WOWS German cruisers the only one that makes a decent impression on me is Hindenburg, but Zao is a cruiser to be respected when in a battleship which Hindenburg to me is not. I have seen more than one Yamato being easily taken apart by one to two Zao's. When I spot cruisers at long range, I target the German ones first because they are easy to sink. At closer ranges the Japanese cruisers are the most dangerous ones and priority one targets. Admiral Graf Spee I suspect would be made just as underwhelming as Yorck is in WOWS.

@ Phlogistoned You mean along the lines of a redistribution of hit points based on standard tonnage? @ Trainspite I remember reading somewhere that an Italian ship was in the works. Since Giulio Cesare was taken by the USSR after WW2 I half suspect that they will model this one first. I do not expect that any full battlecruiser tree will be released anytime soon, because I am not sure what niche battlecruisers would fill in WOWS gameplay. The role of destroyers, cruisers, battleships and carriers in WOWS is fairly cristalized but what niche would battlecruisers fill in WOWS? I like South Dakota, but would rather see a ship from a different nationality first, we have more than enough USA battleships in WOWS as it is for now in my opinion. My first choice for Premiums would be Hood and Ark Royal for Great Britain, Graf Zeppelin for Germany, Roma for Italy, Jean Bart for France and De Ruyter for the Netherlands. Prince of Wales would be nice, but I would rather see Hood first.

There is a proposal to have a new Signal Flag which would allow players to gain +1 Commander Skill Point per month, so that every player can have at least one Skill level 19 Commander in 19 months' time, even the casual player who only plays maybe 10 matches per week. Further explanation of the Signal Flag is here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56860-new-jot-dora-signal-flag/

Far from it. Suppose you only play about 10 matches each weekend on average. And suppose you have a Premium Tier 6 Hood.The chances of you getting a Commander of Hood at Skill level 19 in about 19 months of play are now zero. But with Signal Flag JOT DORA option 1.), you can have your Hood Commander gain one skill level per month IF you sink at least one enemy battleship within the first 40 rounds fired in at least one match every month. If you do well, your Hood Commander will be at Skill level 19 in 19 months' time. What's not to like?

The idea is to have a Signal Flag which even a casual player can earn once a month, but at the same time it should be so rare that the Signal Flag cannot mess up matches. Players can only earn 12 of these Signal Flags a year, that makes them rare. That would allow even casual weekend players chance of getting at least one skill level 19 ship commander. With the current system only 24/7 players will have several Skill level 18-19 Commanders, which puts casual players at a disadvantage who only play a couple of hours every weekend. The way option 1.) would work is that after a player sinks an enemy battleship in a match with 40 or less main gun rounds that he would be awarded the JOT DORA Signal Flag. Then when he flies the JOT DORA Signal Flag in a ship in the next match he would at the end of that match get +1 Skill point for the commander of that ship and during the match he would have enjoyed a +10% main gun accuracy. After that match the player can then decide what to spend that +1 Skill point on. Option 1.) actually helps casual players and veteran players alike with commander skills, which is more useful long term. Option 2.) is fun, but only for one match a month and thus fairly insignificant except maybe for a "must win" ranked match. Option 3.) can be fun, but there is a -70% chance of a magazine detonation ship upgrade module and a "Juliet Charlie" Signal Flag which reduces the chance of a magazine detonation by 100%. Option 4.) same as option 2.) remark applies.

@Capra76 There are some plausible theories on the caliber progression rule, but of course the only people who can say for sure why that rule even exists are WOWS designers. Most likely it is just to keep things "simple" for the players and themselves. @atlasapl I agree. I expect that either Hood or the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare will appear first as a Premiums after August 2016. @ Phlogistoned The Germans generally never fired full salvo's during ranging. It did happen that the first salvo fired could be a full one to "warm" the "cold" guns. The rate of fire (probably about 94 rounds fired mostly in half-salvo's) chosen by the gunnery officer (Schneider) of Bismarck at the battle of Denmark Strait was not near the maximum rate of fire because he was ranging and switched targets after five (half) salvo's requiring the need for ranging again. Hood blew up after five (half) salvo's from Bismarck at 06:01 and then Prince of Wales retired, at about the same time Bismarck significantly altered course to evade torpedos reported by the hydrophone array, which required the need for renewed ranging. http://www.kbismarck.com/ds-barticle.pdf Using the German system of half-salvo's and waiting for fall of shot when targeting in WOWS actually does work pretty nicely when using Tirpitz in WOWS I find, especially at longer (15+ km) ranges. At short range (13-) ranges maximum rate of fire works best, at least in WOWS Tirpitz.

Judging from what you wrote, you clearly did not really carefully read what I wrote. But that is ok. WOWS does not care about the data of the real world ships. We can look them up and quote them all day long on the forum, only this however is what counts for WOWS: "... More than once, we have explained that historicity cannot be entirely supported in the game for several reasons. We try to conform to historical realities or at least take them into consideration but the gameplay will always come first. In some rare cases, we have decided not to implement certain changes because of their glaring inconsistency with reality, but it happened extremely rarely." "-Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad." https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/07/15/wows-qa-15th-july-2016/#more-27555 As I wrote earlier, my assessment of how they will implement the British battleship in WOWS is that they will be following the WOWS development rule of gun caliber progression: for example 38 cm followed by 40 cm. And that means that squeezing the 35 cm of KGV in between Queen Elizabeth 38 cm and Lion 40 cm is something they will very likely not do. Based on WOWS development logic. Likewise they seem to go for "looks" and "dates". Looks sell. The Vanguard was both "newer" and "looks" newer than KGV class, being the last completed battleship ever. And I will repeat it again: it does not matter to WOWS what the actual data of the real world weapons and ships is, what matters is to make ships playable and attactive to "unlock". They can make Vanguard's guns into anything they want performance wise in WOWS. Is that beginning to sink in? WOWS is not bound by anything from the real world. Tier 6 Warspite has 38 cm guns, following WOWS development logic the next step is Tier 7+8 38 cm, Tier 9 40 cm and Tier 10 40+ cm. There is no room for 35 cm after Tier 6, only in the shape of Premiums like done with WOWS Scharnhorst. So Prince of Wales will most likely be a 35 cm Tier 7 Premium like Scharnhorst. My list of WOWS British battleships both line and Premium as described earlier is based on my assessment of how they will be implemented in WOWS. If you want to see a more authentic representation of the British Royal Navy then go and check out "Atlantic Fleet", a fine turn based naval game for PC, Android and Apple devices. It contains the vast majority of the British Royal Navy vessels used during WW2 and they are represented fairly authentically, up to and including the Lion Class. And that game does not have Tiers, Rodney is dangerous and so is Hood. In that game it is not "outclassed" by higher Tiers per game design. You can even sink Tirpitz with Tallboy equipped Lancasters if you are in to that. If WOWS Hood is at Tier 6 that would actually be an advantage, because it would not face anything higher than Tier 8. If it is at Tier 7 then it will be facing Iowa, Izumo and the H-Class. I for one would not like to see that. I assume neither would the people at WOWS for obvious reasons. Put KGV at Tier 8 and it will be facing Yamato, give it historical 35 cm guns versus historical 46 cm guns. That would be most unsound for WOWS to do that, is that beginning to sink in? They will not give 35 cm guns the same performance as 38 cm guns in WOWS for obvious reasons. Now you have your opinion and I have mine. The WOWS York, Roon and Hindenburg for me are painful to look at. Nothing about them fits the Kriegsmarine, not the appearance, not the guns etc. I would rather have a real world Admiral Graf Spee at Tier 7, Blücher at Tier 9 and Prinz Eugen at Tier 10 buffed like Ibuki and Zao have been in WOWS. And WOWS can give these ships ANY performance they deem appropriate for their Tier. Try and let that sink in. They can let the ships perform any way they want to make them playable. WOWS is not a simulation with accurate replica's but an arcade game which is authentic on some points at best. The models look like some real world ships, but they are not replica's of them. We have Tier 10 cruisers (Moskwa) which have more hit points that Tier 8 battleships and which can do more damage per minute with their puny 20 cm guns (Zao) than most battleships (HE+fires)! So try and detach yourself from reality and imagine how the British battleships will be implemented in WOWS based on that. Ok, now to your other statements. I will bite, this will be interesting. As you are the self appointed naval expert in this topic, please enlighten us all with your knowledge. Tell me how "completed" was Amagi in percentages when its construction was stopped to be converted to an aircraft carrier? And why was it never completed, not even as an aircraft carrier? How many Amagi class ships were planned and how many were completed as "designed"? Were any of the other Amagi "class" ships ever completed as "designed"? Tell me when was the Izumo "design" finalised and when was the keel laid for the first one? And which Izumo "design" are we talking about the Hiraga or the Fujimoto variant? You do know the difference between those two variants I assume? Please explain the difference then. Tell me when was the keel laid for the Montana? Tell me when was your famous I/10 design actually accepted? Who designed the turret and guns for it? By whom was the ship designed? When was the keel laid for the first I/10 and which navy and government ordered that? Can you please supply me with a link to a copy of the actual primary source design documents for the I/10? Side note: where are your pretty ship pictures to spice things up, because just making baseless personal attacks is so passé and boring.

I will repond to the last first. I never wrote that not built is fantasy. I wrote: "As a general rule, if a ship was built to a fair level of completion (80+%) I find it interesting, if it is a historically planned paper ship/design it might be remotely interesting, but if it is fantasy ship it is not interesting at all to me AND it will compete with real world ships in WOWS, even worse it will be at a higher Tier like 8-10 (Zao, Amagi, Izumo, Montana, Roon, Hindenburg, Grosser Kurfürst etc.)." Not only the Germans have fantasy ships in WOWS, there was no "final" designs for Montana, Izumo etc. Not to mention some of the Russian ships... some of which are way out of time frame as well. But all that is up to WOWS developers, they could have used real world designs and even real world ships where they chose not to. Which I find a unfortunate. The German 38 cm 3.3 rounds per minute was achieved in real life and guns etc, they did not as a rule break down as result of that. Any gunnery system can have a malfunction every now and then of course. There are no German navy primary source documents stating anything of the kind. The kind of chronic main gun system malfunctions the KGV class had for example were not exhibited by the Bismarck class battleships. What I have pointed out is that Yamato never fired more than 1.7 rounds per minute at range in real life and many USA and British battleships which theoretically could fire 2 or so rounds per minute never actualy did so in gunnery training and combat. But in WOWS we have an interesting situation. We have WOWS Japanese and USA battleships firing at high 2 rounds per gun per minute rates of fire which they could not attain but the only German battleship in the game which could reach 3.3 rounds per gun per minute is nerfed to an artificial low rate of fire. And remember: the maximum rate of fire of a ship in WOWS is the actual rate of fire that players use. In real life ships fire less rounds than their maximum rate of fire due to ranging and course changes etc. but not in WOWS. So if one ship is given a buffed maximum rate of fire compared to real world data and the other one is given a nerfed maximum rate of fire compared to real world data then that becomes important because it means that anything goes in WOWS development terms. The actual real world rate of fire (about 94 rounds fired mostly in half-salvo's) chosen by the gunnery officer (Schneider) of Bismarck at the battle of Denmark Strait is not the issue at hand. It is also not relevant because Schneider did not need to fire at the maximum rate of fire in full accordance with German gunnery practice (which I hope you are a knowledgable about) in that short real world battle due to how the battle developed. The issue at hand is that USA and Japanese battleships in WOWS get an artificially buffed maximum rate of fire compared to real world data while the German battleship Tirpitz gets an artificially nerfed maximum rate of fire compared to real world data. And that is important BECAUSE it makes clear that real world data is arbitrarily ignored by WOWS for reasons of their own choosing. And that means: also forget about real world data for British battleship being key and thus used for PRINCE OF WALES in WOWS. The Yorck in WOWS in pure fantasy. That ship was never built nor designed as such, in fact there was never any serious contemplation by the German government of ever building anything that. Authors like Breyer, Koop et al. document the plans for the 1930s cruisers quite well. The so-called heavy type A-cruisers and light type B-cruisers which were the two design plans considered for Cruiser K and L (which would later become Seydlitz and Lützow the latter of which was sold to the USSR). The A-cruisers are the Admiral Hipper class heavy cruisers with 4x2 = 8 x 20 cm guns. These were built and launched as Seydlitz and Lützow but never fully finished. The B-cruisers are light cruisers which look a lot like the WOWS Yorck, but they are larger and have 4x3 = 12 x 15 cm guns. Navy High Command in June 1936 advised the German government that the cruisers K and L would better be built as B-cruiser design light cruisers to avoid upsetting the governments of Great Britain and France. The German government however decided in November 1936 that cruisers K and L would be build as A-cruiser design heavy cruisers. Construction of Seydlitz (K) was started in December 1936 and construction of Lützow (L) was started in August 1937. In other words, Yorck in WOWS is a fantasy B-cruiser design variant with 20 cm guns instead of the 15 cm guns which it was designed with. But even that is irrelevant because the government never ordered them built, only the A-cruiser heavy cruisers design of the Admiral Hipper class. Between WOWS Yorck and Deutschland class there is no contest armament wise, give me high velocity (making it easier to hit both at long and short range in WOWS) hard hitting 28 cm shells any time of those WOWS fantasy weak low velocity high travel arc rounds which WOWS Yorck fires. Yorck has a light cruiser hull, it is long and high in the water making it an easier target and due to its length the turning circle is also an issue albeit a minor one. The diesels of Deutschland gave it a ship propulsion response value which if my memory serves me right was bettered by none, another advantage. As to the German fleet, they did not expect a declaration of war by France and Great Britain in 1939. They expected a war with France or the USSR but not before 1944. So a balanced German fleet was being developed and constructed which would have been ready by around 1944, its main enemy was considered France by the way and not Great Britain. With war being declared, Navy High Command decided to cancel production of practically all capital ships except Blücher, Prinz Eugen, Bismark and Tirpitz. There were many ship types in development in Germany and construction of some of them had started, but most were stopped or frozen in September 1939. France had in 1939 purportedly the "largest and best" army in the world and that was right on the German border, Poland had 1 million men under arms and behind that the USSR had 4 million men on the border with 2 million reserves behind that. With those kind of armies nearby and being at war, the last priority was continued construction of a great navy in wartime at the expense of the army and air force. Great Britain's position was different allowing them to concentrate on their navy at the expense of the rest, but their design and construction plans were not more diverse or advanced in the areas of new submarines, destroyers, cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers than Germany's. As to the KGV and Vanguard, I consider the Vanguard overall the better designed ship based on what I read from various sources. Whether the KGV would have had better 38 cm guns than the Vanguard is an academic discussion because the real world KGV of course never had any. The issue is what WOWS will do with the ships. And the Vanguard is in looks and displacement a step up from the "short and small" KGV class. Due to its 38 cm guns Vanguard would - like Bismarck - likely be put in Tier 8, so that means the older KGV would be Tier 7 at best. That would force WOWS to give the KGV worse WOWS 38 cm guns than Vanguard because KGV would have nine and Vanguard would have 8. There is a reason for all these naval treaties. They were not forced on the USA and Great Britain by the "have nots" as Roosevelt called them. They were forced on the "have nots" by Roosevelt's "those who have": Great Britain, France and the USA. The reasoning behind them is so simply even a blind man can see it. By forcing all countries to build battleships of 35 000 tons, this limits the ships to certain parameters for armour, propulsion, armament. That means that countries which can only afford to build maybe 4 battleships have ships which are not qualitatively superior to those of Great Britain and the USA. And that means that if say Great Britain has 18 battleships of the same 35 000 tons they will always be able to engage with superiority in numbers and equal quality. If however one country builds 4 battleships of 100 000 tons then not even 8 x 35 000 ton battleships can deal with them and that means that all 18 battleships need to be concentrated at one spot on the globe like in 1914-1918. So the naval treaties were not to limit Great Britain and the USA but to ensure their parity in quality and superiority in numbers. It is that simple. Why then 35 000 tons and not more? Because Great Britain and its Empire were contracting as a result of WW1, they simply could no longer maintain the huge fleet they had up till 1918. Ships of up till 35 000 tons were still about affordable. Of course in war different rules apply, then all of a sudden there is no limit to spending on anything military, so Vanguard could of course be built under wartime conditions. After 1945 the British navy became even smaller and even more a shadow of former self than the British navy of 1918-1939. As to what will be done to the British battleships and cruisers in WOWS, I point to this statement: "... More than once, we have explained that historicity cannot be entirely supported in the game for several reasons. We try to conform to historical realities or at least take them into consideration but the gameplay will always come first. In some rare cases, we have decided not to implement certain changes because of their glaring inconsistency with reality, but it happened extremely rarely." https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/07/15/wows-qa-15th-july-2016/#more-27555

You missed the point made completely as evident from what you wrote. In fact you have underlined if the ability mentioned earlier is pertinent to you: "you will learn in time - if you have the ability to learn that is" Until that ability manifests itself, I cannot take you seriously. But I wish you all the best mate.

There is a difference between common human decency and being civil on the one hand and being politically correct on the other hand. They are different concepts completely. Look them up to understand the difference. When you write to people "you need" "I want" etc. you sound like a little child asking his mommy for something and throwing a tantrum when he does not get what he wants. Now, if a person states that the earth is round he does not "need" to prove that to you. You are entitled to exactly.... nothing. You generally will get answer to your questions if you ask "nicely". If you do not... well you will learn in time - if you have the ability to learn that is - what happens if you go around writing "you need" "I want". As the saying goes "you can bring a horse to the water, but you cannot teach it how to drink".

I respect your opinion but I do not agree with it. First of all Premiums are exceptions. Flavour ships in WOWS terms one could say. Battle cruiser Hood if realistically displayed is too weak to compete with battleships, so Tier 6 would suit her well in matches to have a fair chance. But it is probably THE most well known British ship, so not adding it as a Premium ship would be commercially unsound. At Tier 6 it still will meet Tier 8 battleships and it will certainly be no match for them, not unlike Yorck at Tier 7 is in the German cruiser line. HMS Refit and Repair (a.k.a. Renown and Repulse) will be even more difficult to integrate in WOWS, still I hope to see them one day. As to KGV 3x3 = 9 x 38 cm being stronger than Vanguard 4x2 = 8 x 38 cm, that would not be so dependant on the characteristics of the 38 cm. If the Vanguard gets a higher rate of fire, better accuracy and higher damage per round or a combination of that then Vanguard would be superior. Easily done. As to the KGV and Vanguard armour scheme, the same applies. The ship which the people at WOWS make stronger will be stronger. If I take a quick look at what Siegfried Breyer writes about Vanguard and KGV, Vanguard has about the same armour scheme but better water tight compartment design and compartimentalisation. Vanguard is the superior ship, it looks better and was the last battleship in the world ever built. KGV and Nelson are clearly small and short budget ships built by an Empire short on cash and overstretched globally to the brink. Bismarck and Tirpitz could fire 3.3 rounds of 38 cm shells per gun per minute, in the game they have toned that down to 2.3 per minute per gun. Yamato never fired faster than 1.7 rounds per minute per gun and in WOWS it gets 2 rounds per minute per gun. Most of the USA battleships could reach one round per minute at best during training and combat, but they almost all get two rounds per minute. There is no proof that an Iowa at full load could go faster than 31 knots, but they get 33 knots in WOWS. Bismarck/Tirpitz at combat load could go 30.8 knots, but in WOWS this is about 30.5 at best, mostly 30.1 or so in matches. So WOWS can do anything they like. In many ways real world ships are larger versions of their predecessors. I find no fault in that, it is what it is. Look at KGV and Lion, or North Carolina and South Dakota. In fact I like that about national ship designs. I prefer a historical ship to a fantasy one. Give me the increasingly larger Admiral Hipper, Blücher and Prinz Eugen cruisers any time over the ridiculous fantasy Yorck, Roon and Hindenburg. If I want to see fantasy stuff I will play a fantasy game. Keep it historically authentic at least with designs and ships which actually existed and fitted the design doctrine of the nations involved. If Admiral Hipper, Blücher and Prinz Eugen would have different stats that would be preferable to fantasy ships and fantasy stats, which is what we have now in Yorck, Roon and Hindenburg. The current German cruiser line is a mess, WOWS Yorck is a disaster at Tier 7 heavy cruiser level it has a light cruiser hull with fantasy guns. Give me the Lützow over that any time at 28.6 knots. Historical flavour not fantasy please. Lützow (ex-Deutschland) or Admiral Graf Spee at 28.6 knots would still be a lot better of than Yorck. Yorck too is no match for a Tier 6 battleship, be it Dunkerque or any other one. And Yorck is fantasy nonsense, Lützow is not. Admiral Graf Spee (Deutschland-Class) is one of the most well known German ships. The Deutschland class versus other WOWS cruisers, would if implemented in the right way be stronger than any cruiser which is faster and slower than any cruiser which is weaker of course. No problem for cruiser balance there. No Tier 7 cruiser can stand up to a battleship by itself in WOWS and neither could Lützow/Admiral Graf Spee. The Deutschland-Class ships would be historical, authentic AND more fun to play. Yorck cannot outrun most battleships at level 7-9 as it is, same as it would be for Lützow/Admiral Graf Spee BUT they would be better armoured, protected and armed than Yorck to make things fun. And the WOWS Yorck is anything but fun... We can all have our preferences of course. I am not interested in the fantasy ships. For me the German cruiser line ends with Admiral Hipper, the German battleship line ends with Bismarck. For the USA the battleship line ends with Iowa and the Japanese battleship line ends with Nagato. It is not that I am not interested in Yamato, I am, but Amagi and Izumo are simply too much paper without anything real world to back them up so working my way up to and through those ships does not interest me. As for the British, it ends with Vanguard, the Lion was never built. I shudder to think how the WOWS British cruiser line will be implemented, since the differences between British cruisers are not that great, so we will probably see fantasy British cruisers from Tier 8 and up.... As a general rule, it a ship was built to a fair level of completion (80+%) I find it interesting, if it is a historically planned paper ship/design it might be remotely interesting, but if it is fantasy ship it is not interesting at all to me AND it will compete with real world ships in WOWS, even worse it will be at a higher Tier like 8-10 (Zao, Amagi, Izumo, Montana, Roon, Hindenburg, Grosser Kurfürst etc.). Like Captain Kirk's fantasy Phaser gun competing with a real world Martini Henry rifle...

Your attitude towards Tyrendian89 is frankly disturbing. Be a darling mate and chill up, learn to write "please" and "thank you" instead of "you need" do this or that for me to other people. Generally try and be a more sociable guy because the world has enough anti-social people as it is in my opinion and there is no reason to display anti-social behaviour on the WOWS forum.

Tyrendian89 does not "need" to provide a source to you Commodore_Ahsoka_Tano. He could do so if you asked nicely. On the other hand it is easy to find, so here you go: https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/07/07/wows-dev-on-tier-10-german-bb/ On a side note: the German navy in all its surviving primary source documents made clear that it did not want 3+ gun turrets for several important and valid reasons. They could produce them of course but did not want them for their own ships because but they were bulkier, heavier, had a lower rate of fire than 2-gun turrets and they prevented an outnumbered ship from spreading its fire over more than one target. These are some of the reasons listed in German navy primary source documents.Needless to say that if one turret is knocked out on a 4x2 ship that reduces its armament by 25% and if one turret is knocked out on a 3x3 ship its armement is reduced by 33%, also the rear of the ship has only 33% armament while a 4x2 turret ship has 50% of its armament available bow and stern. The actual attained rate of fire of the German 38 cm guns of Bismarck and Tirpitz in 2-gun was 3.3 rounds per minute, whereas 3+ gun turrets had a lower rate of fire. Yamato had an effective rate of fire of 1.7 rounds per minute and the theoretical rate of fire of the 38+ cm 3+ gun turrets of the USA, British, French and Japanese navies of 2 rounds per minute was never actually attained in combat condition gunnery trials. So to introduce a Tier 10 German battleship with triple turrets is simply ignoring what the German navy leadership had decided concerning the use of 3+ gun turrets for 38+ cm guns.

It is safe to say that WOWS will NOT introduce a British battleship armed with 35 cm guns at tier 8 in the regular British battleship "line". Here is a purported WOWS representative statement from the "Armored Patrol" website: "Question 2. Why have you decided to equip Gneisenau with 380mm guns instead of her historical 283mm ? Why don’t you give players the option to chose between the two ? Do you really think that six guns of not even the biggest caliber will cut it at tier 7 ? Do you realize the monsters it will have to fight against ? If she’s released in her current state, she will be unplayable. A. Here are the main reasons. -Guns with different caliber on a single ship is bad. -Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad. -Scharnorst. We have no desire to release unplayable ships." https://thearmoredpatrol.com/category/world-of-warships/page/2/ Look at the new German battleship line: Tier 6 - Bayern with historical 38 cm guns Tier 7 - Gneisenau with historically planned but not realised 38 cm guns (so not the historical 28 cm guns she fielded in real life) Tier 8 - Bismarck with historical 38 cm guns Tier 9 - H-Class with historical 40 cm guns Tier 10 - Fantasy ship with fantasy guns and turrets 42+ cm Premium tier 7 - Scharnhorst with historical 28 cm guns So the WOWS development reasoning follows this line of thought: Premium can be "special" exceptions to the general rule. The general rule for a "line" is that the guns will become larger at higher tiers but not the other way round ("Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad"). That means that if we see a KGV class battleship in the British battleship "line" it will most likely NOT have 35 cm guns. This WOWS British battleship "line" is more likely: Tier 6 - Queen Elizabeth with historical 38 cm guns Tier 7 - KGV with fantasy 38 cm guns setup (3x3 = 9 guns, this was considered at one time for the KGV class according to some sources) Tier 8 - Vanguard with historical 38 cm guns Tier 9 - Lion with historical 40 cm guns Tier 10 - Some paper ship with fantasy 40+ cm guns The "exception" to the "line" rule would be the followig Premium ships: Premium Tier 6 - Warspite with historical 38 cm guns Premium Tier 6 - Hood with historical 38 cm guns Premium Tier 6 - Nelson with historical 40 cm guns Premium Tier 7 - Prince of Wales with historical 35 cm guns Just look at the German navy "lines" in WOWS to see how they implement ships in WOWS. Following the progression rule cruiser will progress from 15 cm guns to 20+ cm guns in WOWS. Germany in WOWS went from the light cruisers of the "K-class" (Tier 5) and "Nürnberg-class" (Tier 6) armed with 15 cm guns to Tier 7-10 heavy cruisers with 20 cm guns in four classes (Yorck, Admiral Hipper, Roon, Hindenburg). WOWS created three (!) fantasy ships (Yorck, Roon, Hindenburg) to follow that progression rule. In reality Germany went from 15 cm light cruisers to 28 cm heavy cruisers of which two classes were planned (3xDeutschland-Class/P-class) and then back again to 20 cm heavy cruisers (Admiral Hipper, Blücher, Prinz Eugen). WOWS decided not to implement real world German heavy cruisers with 28 cm guns of which two classes existed (one built and one planned) but instead created three fantasy classes in the "line". Most probably because of the "Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad" rule. The German cruiser "line" when historically correct should have been: Tier 5 - Karlsruhe light cruiser with historical 15 cm guns (the Karlsruhe was more advanced/modern than the Königsberg, not the WW1 Karlsruhe but the 1929 one) Tier 6 - Nürnberg light cruiser with historical 15 cm guns Tier 7 - Lützow heavy cruiser with historical 28 cm guns (Deutschland-Class) Tier 8 - Admiral Hipper heavy cruiser with historical 20 cm guns Tier 9 - Blücher heavy cruiser with historical 20 cm guns (ship was slightly larger than Admiral Hipper) Tier 10 - Prinz Eugen heavy cruiser with historical 20 cm guns (ship was significantly larger than Admiral Hipper and Blücher) In this way no silly fantasy German cruisers would have had to been introduced in WOWS. Even the historically planned "P-Class" of cruisers with 3x2 = 6 x 28 cm guns would have been preferable as a historically correct paper ship. Certainly more interesting that fantasy ships like Yorck, Roon and Hindenburg. The Yorck is very bad WOWS creation since it has a light cruiser hull and a heavy cruiser armament. The "P-Class" heavy cruisers as designed historically, and whose construction was actually started in real life, looked like this: The WOWS German battleship "line" also follows the same "Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad" WOWS rule. For the German battleship "line" the Tier 10 ship is just silly from whatever way one looks at it, since real world paper studies exist which would fit at least a historically founded Tier 10 design instead of the one that has been implemented in WOWS. The German battleship "line" Tier 10 ship fits the progression rule in WOWS of course. The Scharnhorst class of battleship in WOWS is represented in the German battleship "line" by the Gneisenau armed with 3x2= 6 x 38 cm guns instead of the historical 3x3 = 9 x 28 cm guns. The Gneisenau having 38 cm guns however was historically already planned to be done in May 1935 when the ship was ordered built. Construction of the two Scharnhorst battleship class of two ships was started in May and June 1935. To speed up their completion they were to use the improved 28 cm guns originally planned to be used by the cancelled "P-Class" heavy cruisers since the guns and turrets for these had already been designed. On 9th May 1935 the decision was taken to equip the Scharnhorst class battleships with 3x2 = 6 x 38 cm guns instead of the 28 cm guns. The firm of Krupp estimated that it would take an additional16-22 months building time to replace the 28 cm guns with the new 38 guns. The head of the German navy decided that in order to speed up completion of the Scharnhorst-class battleships they would first be completed with the 28 cm guns. When the new 38 cm gun battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz would become operational in 1941 the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau would be decommissioned and refitted in about 1942 with the same 38 cm guns and turrets as Bismarck. War was was not expected before 1944. In 1942 work was actually started to first equip the Gneisenau with 38 cm guns and it was then determined that it could be done in less than 12 months, according to Krupp et al. In 1943 all construction of German capital ships stopped due to the focus of the war effort going to other areas. So the Gneisenau having 38 cm guns in WOWS is not that far away from what was actually historically planned, even though it was never fully completed during the war due to altered priorities. As to KGV class armed with 3x3 = 9 x 38 cm guns, I have read about British navy design studies being done in that direction. I have not found any drawings of them however. But for WOWS that would not make a difference. Prince of Wales will most likely be introduced with 35 cm guns, but as a Tier 7 Premium, since Vanguard is the Tier 8 material both in displacement as in armament. And Vanguard also is far better suited for the Tier 8 part, both in displacement and in "looks", the KGV class and Nelson have a distinct appearance but alas also look a bit like "budget" ships and they are "small" compared to their foreign contemporaries and with everything "shoe-horned" into a comparatively "small narrow" hull. Beauty of course is in the eye of the beholder, but Hood and Vanguard to many are the best looking of the lot.

More dodging, more evasive remarks. If you cannot prove what you write then do not write it. What you have done with all this, is turn your statement that the "RN (British Royal Navy) had by far the most accurate battleship guns of any navy in WW1 or WW2" into a silly baseless remark. Instead of doing us fans of the British navy a favour you have done the opposite with your statement. Go read the declassified USA navy and German navy GKdo 100 primary source documents which are available and which do contain actual achieved gunnery accuracy results during gunnery trials held in the 1930s and 1940s. And unless you can provide any comparable primary source British navy gunnery trial data which actually proves that the British navy in the 1900-1945 period had substantially better gunnery accuracy results than is documented in the aforementioned USA and German navy primary source data, then please refrain from making any more silly baseless statements about superior British navy gunnery. Because by writing down unbacked baseless bombastic statements about the British navy like the one you made, you make us fans of the British navy look silly thank you very much.

There is nothing ridiculous about what I wrote. You are being defensive, evasive and not cooperative at all. Why is that? Either you can supply us primary source proof concerning your gunnery accuracy statement regarding the British navy or you cannot. Point us to the primary source British navy information you are basing your statement on please, I am sure that all British navy fans would love it when you share that with us. I am well aware of some of the data on the website you supplied links to but it has nothing to do with your earlier statement and the question I asked in response to it. Your links supply no primary source data on the actual ACHIEVED gunnery accuracy of British navy battlecruisers and battleship in the many, many gunnery trials and crew gunnery training carried out in the 1900-1945 period on the individual ships of the British navy. And to remind you, your earlier statement points to the actual superior accuracy of British gunnery to all other navies in the world. Your links do not contain primary source British navy documentation on what I asked for. I asked for proof in the form of primary source actual documented British navy gunnery trials results for British navy ships of the classes I listed above. Those classes I listed concern British battlecruisers and battleships which are most likely to be included in WOWS at one point in time. Secondary "academic" sources are irrelevant in this respect for obvious reasons. I have many, many books in several languages on ships and navies and not in any book have I ever seen even a primary source being even mentioned concerning British navy gunnery accuracy achieved during trials in the 1900-1945 period. Your statement however implies that you base the superior British navy actual gunnery accuracy claim on a qualified source, and the only one that can be qualified in this respect are British navy primary sources for obvious reasons. Please do not tell me that British navy 1900-1945 actual ship gunnery trials documents are still classified in 2016. If that is so, then I wonder why that has to be so in 2016 when they prove the superior gunnery accuracy of the British navy in the 1900-1945 period to all other navies in the world as you stated. And if they are still classified then how can you actually hope to factually prove your statement that British navy gunnery was more accurate than that of all other navies in the world. The USA navy has made some primary source declassified documentation available on the subject of their achieved gunnery accuracy up till 1941 and there are also declassified parts of the German navy GKdo 100 primary source documents listing actual accuracy achieved during the 1940s. So I know of USA navy and German navy declassified gunnery trials documents of the period in question and have seen them and read them, but not British navy ones. Please enlighten the forum with your primary British navy sources for us fans of the British navy. If you cannot supply to us fans of the British navy any qualified British primary source documentation which factually proves the superior British navy gunnery trials accuracy in the 1900-1940 period then that will undermine your earlier statement quite a bit. Now concerning the website you supplied links to, you might find it interesting to look at these links, because they contain some of the sort of information which is actually useful with regard to achieved gunnery accuracy during trials: http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p2.htm If you could supply British navy actual gunnery accuracy trials data like found in those two links from British navy primary sources which would prove your statement, then you would do all of us British navy fans a real favour.

This is very interesting, you wrote: "RN (British Royal Navy) had by far the most accurate battleship guns of any navy in WW1 or WW2". No doubt this remark is based on actual gunnery trials data which the British navy has compiled over the lifetime of their many battleships, battlecruisers etc. Would you please be so kind and share some declassified actual British navy 1900-1945 period primary source gunnery trials documents from which we can get an idea of actual real world measured and documented British gunnery accuracy achieved during the various gunnery trials of ships of the: - "Queen Elizabeth" battleship class - "Revenge" battleship class - "Renown" battlecruiser class - "Admiralty" battlecruiser class (Hood) - "Nelson" battleship class - "KGV" battleship class No doubt there are many (declassified) 1900-1945 period British navy gunnery primary source trials documents which list the actual gunnery accuracy results achieved during the "working up" period, after "minor/major rebuilds", regular gunnery training etc. over the long life time of many British navy ships which existed in the 1900-1945 period. From your remark I gather you have access to these primary source British navy documents, so I kindly ask you to please share them. Needless to say that only actual (declassified) British navy primary source 1900-1945 period documents are useful in this respect for obvious reasons.

Hallo Allen! Auf das Forum wird viel debattiert über das Pro und Contra von Statistiken, Schiffe, Schaden, Nationale Schiffslinien, Schiffsklassen, verbesserungs/verschlechterungs Maßnahmen (englisch: buffing/nerfing) etcetera. Es kann interessant sein die Meinungen von Forum Mitglieder in einer Meinungsumfrage zusammen zu fassen um die generelle Lage des Spiels nach Meinung der Forum Mitglieder fest zu stellen. Ich hoffe das die meiste Forum Mitglieder an diese Meinungsumfrage teilnehmen weil Ihre Antworten sehr hilfreich sein können für neue Spieler, die Spiel Entwickler und natürlich weil es die Forum Mitglieder helfen kann fest zu stellen was die Forum Mitglieder generell finden von World of Warships auf der jetzige Stand. Bei allen Fragen gilt: Antworte einfach das erste woran man denkt, es ist kein Hexenwerk! Die Meinungsumfrage ist bewußt so zusammengestellt worden das nicht immer "wenn und aber", "Kontext" oder "weiß nicht" undsoweiter Antworten möglich sein werden. Einige Fragen sind bewußt so formuliert das man eine vielleicht nicht immer so direkt gewollte Möglichkeit wählen muss. Das ist genau so als wenn die Entwickler ab und zu Sachen ändern im Spiel die man nicht gerne gewollt hätte. Bekanntlich kann man im Spiel leider nicht alles so haben wie man es vielleicht haben will, und so ist es auch in der Meinungsumfrage. Wenn diese Meinungsumfrage aus irgend einer Grund ein Forum Mitglied nicht gefällt dann muss er/sie natürlich die Meinungsumfrage nicht ausfüllen und er/sie soll bitte dann auch keine negative Kommentare schreiben und statt dessen bitte zu einen anderen Forum Topic wechseln. Ich danke freundlich alle Forum Mitglieder im voraus die teilnehmen an dieser Meinungsumfrage! Mit freundlichem Gruß, Widar Thule P.S. Deutsch ist nicht meine Muttersprache also sind Rechtschreibfehler vorbehalten!

Hi all! On the forum one can see a lot of debating going on concerning the pros and cons of stats, ships, damage inflicted, national ship lines and ship classes, buffing/nerfing etcetera. It might be interesting to combine the opinions of the forum members into a single poll in order to determine the general state of the game in the eyes of the forum members. I hope that most of the forum members will participate in this poll for the benefit of new players to the game, the development team and of course last but not least to further aid forum members in establishing what they actually think of the World of Warships as it stands now. Thanks in advance to all forum members which participate in the poll! Kindest regards, Widar Thule Edit: As a general response to some critical comments posted below I have added some additional general remarks and clarifications. Concerning all poll questions: The point of the poll is to determine your primary response, this opinion poll and the questions therin do not exactly require mastery of rocket science to answer! When in doubt, go by your gut and give your primary response. The poll in some questions focuses on your broad general opinion, for example concerning ship classes etcetera, and not specific exceptions to the general rule or every possible context. Some questions have been mirrored on purpose for the same reason why this is done in professional opinion poles. The poll questions have been deliberately constructed in such a way that for some questions it is not always possible to answer questions with a "when and if", or "in context such and such then" or "I do not know" or "I cannot decide" etcetera response. Some questions have purposely been formulated in such a way that one has to choose an option which one might not prefer to see implemented. This is intentional because it is precisely the same as when the developers every now and then radically change and implement things in the game which you would not liked to have seen changed. The developers will nerf and buff things in future versions of the game whether the players like it or not, so it is better to at least have an opinion on what to nerf/buff first if one want to influence the developers. It is well known that one cannot have everything in the game the way one might want it to be, and in like manner so it is in some of the questions of this opinion poll. In such a case one chooses the lesser of the proposed "evils". If this opinion poll for any reason whatsoever does not meet the approval of a Forum Member than of course he/she should not fill out the opinion poll, and he/she should then also please do not write any negative commentary in the topic but instead he/she is better served by moving on to another Forum Topic. Paraphrasing a famous philospher: whenever one questions questions a lot, one becomes questionable oneself.