piritskenyer

A few weeks ago the same discussion went on about the New Mexico class' torpedo tubes, where it was claimed that they were deck-mounted. However, no evidence was found of deck mountings, and upon asking Tony DiGiulian, the guy who runs NavWeaps.com, I got the reply that the torps on NewMex were as follows: So I went looking up the stats of the Bliss-Leavitt Mk 9, and found this: Bliss-Leavitt 21" (53.3 cm) Mark 9 . Ship Class Used On Mod 1: World War I-era Battleships Mod 1B: Submarines Date Of Design About 1912 Date In Service 1915 Weight Mod 1: 2,059 lbs. (934 kg) Mod 1B: 2,377 lbs. (1,078 kg) Overall Length 196 in (5.004 m) Explosive Charge Mod 1: 210 lbs. (95 kg) TNT Mod 1B: 395 lbs. (179 kg) Torpex Range / Speed Mod 1: 9,000 yards (8,230 m) / 27 knots Mod 1B: 5,500 yards (5,030 m) / 34.5 knots Power Wet-heater Guidance Mark 8 Mod 1 gyro Notes: A short torpedo developed for the submerged tubes on battleships. Originally known as the Bliss-Leavitt Mark 3 Mod 1. Used by "R" and "S" class submarines in World War II. Last torpedo built by Bliss. . This all seems to point to the fact that US BB's were in fact not fitted with deck mountings for torpedos.

Even though quite a few workable ideas got floated by the community...

Yes, but you are not an inexperienced player and you have better insight into your own play. He doesn't, so he comes asking for help from people who do. That's a pretty intelligent thing to do. He wasn'T whining or being a self-entitled [edited], he was seeking advice. Bad enough that you didn't bother to stop and read, worse still that you took the time to launch an attempt at trolling in form of a resentful comment, instead of shrugging and saying "just another idiot" if that was to be your belief. Make no mistake, I'm no saint, and I'll take time and pleasure in trolling idiots on this forum, but at least I'll take the care to make sure it's indeed an idiot I'm levelling trolling at and not someone looking for help to get better at the game.

Well, if you don't [edited] read, don't [edited] comment. You don't know what's going on in the opening post, so what makes you think you can form an opinion? He explicitly asked for help, he didn't put the blame on anyone else but himself, and then asked for help from experienced people.

Holy sh1t, mate, that's excellent.

You know how olde forumites are being cussed at for trolling newbies? Well, that's the perfect example right there.

I read somewhere that both the Richelieu and Dunkerque classes had extremely compact and efficient machinery, which reduced size, increased installed power but made maintenance (especially at sea) much more difficult than US and UK designs..

That was absolutely uncalled for, esp since he said he's seeking help.

Okay. Now that we that out of the way, let's concentrate on the blasted ships, shall we?

Would have to consult navweaps to tell you that, I'll do it once I'm home.

I agree whole-heartedly. Although I have to ask, which battle of Kadesh are you reffering to? The ancient one or the timeless one? I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but based on what happened to Richelieu when her n°2 turret was hit but only partially disabled (with the inner starboard gun being broken).

quoted post removed How very original... Need I remind you of how the siege of Singapore went? @OP: I think French BB's will be the hard chargers of the bunch of BB's in the game, much more so than Izumo. Myself and other forumites have been discussing the possibility of proposing the turrets to be split in half module-wise, for two (three) reasons: The loss of a single turret would do immense damage to the ships' offensive capabilities It would allow for more controlled firing, not just putting out 8 shells in 2 clicks (Almost all quad turrets had a blast-proof bulkhead separating the gunhouse into two compartment, with the purpose of keeping the turret in the fight even if hit directly. The turret powerdrives were also doubled for the two compartments, in case one side was knocked out) Fighting retreat would be accomplished by showing a stern angle of ~50-60° (if memory serves the turrets could fire 120-130° astern), which really shouldn't be a problem, given the high speed of the two classes discussed here (Richelieu: 30.5-31 kts, Dunkerque: 31-31.5 kts). These ships are also quite compact for their displacement, so I should expect pretty good armour.

Having only payed up to the Kirov, I'd say that the Russian cruisers so far seem to be great guns attached to utterly bleurgh ships. The one ship I'm really looking forward in that line is the Dmitri Donskoy, she actually seems pretty good (although I don't know how those guns would hold up at T9), I have my doubts about the Moskva tbh...

I think it's not even you I wanted to quote. Misclick, sorry.

The turret axis of C turret is too close to B turret for it to allow for angled firing. Hopefully that won't be much of an issue with the Nelson class, since the C turret axis is further back.

Grammar Standartenführer, at your disposal.

Hms hood (HMS magazined) HMS* Hood* Damn, son, basics South Dakota (can we go now) Prinz Eugen (u get a fire and u get a fire) You* and you* Howe (guns jammed) Richelieu (why the french should of stuck to battleship designing) should've* (I swear this should of thing is going to make me go kill people one day) Hms neptune (Kanganep XD) HMS* Neptune* Hms Belfast (so northern irish) HMS* HMAS Vampire ( i love to suck ur blood mate) your* Roma (casue nothing screams Italian more then a battleship) (assuming casue is just a typo -.- ), than* yuudachi (poi XD) (idk what that is, but capital letters, son, do you know 'em?)

The whole [edited]point of her being "in line" with other IJN CA's is exactly the problem! She doesn't have anythng that makes her unique. She's not better than her predecessor, and she's certainly not any better than anything on the tier. Grind through and ditch.

Same speed, smaller size.

Picturing that alone made me laugh and laugh.

"Ridiculous" Sure. Your argument seems to entail that every CA at T8 should play similarly with no variation whatsoever. Well, wrong. If every ship of a class at a given tier was absolutely the same (or at the very least very similar), there'd be no point in grinding for the different ships or in trying different ones to see which one suits your playstyle. In other words, it'd be extremely boring and frustrating. Right now we have the same kind of flamethrowers the Mog used to be pre-nerf, only those are newer. Chapayev as the regular one MK for premium And we have the two ships that she was forced to be closer to: Atago for prem And the New Orleans Now the nice thing about the Mogami used to be that she was between the two camps, and could join either one. She should have retained her flexibility, especially since her 155 turrets were not as bad as everyone tries to make them look (in order to justify the overly agressive nerfs she's recieved)

Nooo, no, don't burn them. Depth charge them.

You're not enough of a scrub to lower anyone's winrate, mate ;)

Oh my god, I think I just fell in love there.

I'm not so sure about that. I take much less damage in the Atago than I do in the Mogami even when I do get hit.