Historynerd

It has been mentioned multiple times that the current game engine cannot support diving submarines.

If you say so... but everywhere else I think people stand a better chance of learning about the Hood and the PoW rather than about the Warspite. Most probably Hood will be part of a dedicated battlecruiser line... the Royal Navy has had enough designs to consider this.

Very well, you know that, as someone well-versed in the history of the Royal Navy. Do you believe that, at a more widespread and less deep level of knowledge, people might know the same? Or they would rather focus on the dramatic fates of ships that sunk so tragically, therefore ignoring a ship that, full of honours as it might have been, did not suffer a similar fate but survived to be broken up for scrap? That's all I'm saying.

Her role in both Coronel and Falkland was rather marginal; if Von Spee had in its mind to attack the British ships at anchor, he would have done so without caring for Canopus' shots. Her punch? Do you mean four 12-inch guns that, according to NavWeaps, had a maximum range of 13'600 meters approximately (imagine how that would be worked out!), could fire at most 1.33 rounds per minute and as designed in the 1890s look like rather outdated weapons even for WWI standards? I have my doubts... I agree.

While the Lord Nelson might be understandable, the Canopus-class is out of the question, I am absolutely sure. Those ships weren't even designed as first-class battleships, but for service in the Far East; their armour protection was just plain ridicolous, even armoured cruiser guns would have managed to punch through their belts.

Right; after Fisher left the Admiralty, the RN was left to find a way to use these ships. And I think it was a good idea to let them participate (minus Furious) ot a single operation, because otherwise they might have run too many risks. It's ships like these that make me appreciate some designs of the Regia Marina like the early Condottieri-class cruisers. At least those had a sense.

Precisely.

Ironically, in North Africa the first Tiger to be defeated by an Allied tank was defeated precisely by a Churchill that hit it in the turret ring...

The Churchill cannot be considered the pinnacle of British tank evolution; I'd say we look more at the Cromwell, the Comet, and perhaps even the Centurion. Those weren't bad tanks.

Hey, that's a bit harsh. Maybe they weren't as iconic as the Sherman or the T-34, but they did get the job done, more or less.

Hey, I just noticed a thing. It seems that Libeccio Kai has good maximum stats for ASW. Might it be worth something, or it's just useless?

Ah, good to know. I guess that losing someone might be something to avoid...

Hm; so that's what happens if a ship sinks in combat. I hadn't seen that before.

I don't recognize who was the girl who bought it...

Oh, alright; I just thought that you were meaning that these new 16-inch guns were made by improving the old Mark I design... Now that we have clarified that, I agree with you.

I know, but what I cannot find is confirmation that these guns were a direct improvement of the Mark I mounted on the Nelson-class...

I will look up the first one. But in the second all I could find was this:

Well, forgive me if I seem dumb, but not even on Campbell it says so... do you have another source?

Hmmm... on NavWeaps.com it isn't said that the various versions of the 16-in guns designed for the Lion-class were directly derived from the ones mounted on the Nelson-class... In fact, it says that they resembled in many aspects scaled-up versions of the 14-in guns of the King George V-class.

For Tiers 9 and 10, any such designs would have to be modified in some way nonetheless, for example in the AA armament, because I think that what was deemed acceptable in the early 1920s wouldn't be acceptable in the late years of the war.

I agree.

The relatively high dispersion of the 381 mm Italian guns (because that's what it was about, not "inaccuracy" per se, as Italian high-caliber fire has always been considered even in British reports good for optical fire control systems) can only be partially ascribed to defects of the guns per se, and particularly to the excessive muzzle velocity.The rest of it was because of the uneven quality of the shells, not because of a peculiar lack of the Italian industry in this regard, but because of the lack of proper controls (the 1% allowance was crippling in this respect), because shells made for trials performed very well, and there are recorded instances confirmed by British reports of 381 mm salvoes with a relatively small dispersion (also because some fire control directors tried to prepare salvoes in some occasions with shells with similar characteristics in advance). Also, Italian fire control doctrine tended to favour in some respect the dispersion, to straddle the enemy more quickly (and having the effect of having a low number of shells per salvo directly on target), while the British doctrine conversely emphasized tight salvoes, which ensured that for each straddle relatively many hits, but reducing the numbers of straddles; for example, at Punta Stilo the Italian battleships (of the Cavour-class, armed with two triple and two double 320 mm turrets) fired in this manner: first the turret No. 1 firing slightly to the forward of the enemy target, then turrets No. 2 and 3, firing precisely at the estimated target, then finally turret No. 4 firing slightly to the enemy's rear. The idea was to straddle the enemy first, and then gradually tighten the salvoes. Tl;dr this matter is complex and needs to be discussed further.

I was trying to be kind...

In terms of numbers of design to offer, I absolutely agree. The Courageous-class ships might be be good cruiser hunters, but against anything having a larger caliber gun than, say, 203 mm, they would be in deep trouble.

What?