Historynerd

To me, it seems that it's just that plunging fire can critically damage ships more often than short range fire, as the latter hits the main belt, one of the thickest if not the thickest protection that the ship has. But take a battleship with powerful enough guns, and you'll see that it can pierce the belt armor, and it can cause as much damage as plunging fire.

Nothing to say about the war getting in the way, but what do you mean that she was supposed to become a "harder-hitting fast battleship"? As far as I know, the plan was to improve her horizontal armor, not to touch her main armament or her fire control... but I may be wrong. Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that it was Hood that mistakenly fired at the beginning at Prinz Eugen, while the Prince of Wales fired at Bimsarck....

I just thought that the logic sounded to me kind of similar to Fubuki's... albeit on a smaller case (the Maestrale-class didn't set the standard for destroyers all over the world, after all ), it was the first run of what we could call the standard WWII destroyer of the respective navies.

You know, I wondered why they chose Libeccio to be the first Italian destroyer introduced in the game (I hope somebody else will join her, of course!). Could it be perhaps that it was because the Maestrale-class destroyers pretty much set the pattern for Italian WWII destroyers, in a way similar to the Fubuki-class in the IJN?

So... you're just going to let her stay in dock and do nothing?

You want to have a go at Libeccio? The comments on her page are mostly about her having low stats, if not being useless...

...Wait, does someone actually USE Yamato? I thought that she was so expensive that for each sortie one had to empty its pockets, or something like that...

Wow... this makes the fuel problem suffered by the RM during the war look laughable...

...Are events always so expensive? (Sorry if I bother you with my naive and stupid questions... )

In theory; in practice she had no chance to show if the hybrid battleship/carrier concept would actually work. There are examples, of course in a smaller dimension, of hybrid ships that tried to unite a surface combat vessel and an aviation vessel (for example the Swedish cruiser Gotland), but those weren't very successful. So I am always skeptical about the real value of this ships, and the confusion they bring about to their use in actual combat.

Thanks for the answer. It's all in mente Dei, I guess.

I disagree. In many instances, the lemming train is ultimately ineffective - either not reaching the enemy base fast enough before the enemy has darted trhough the undefended areas and reached home base. In my experience, the lemming train (meaning all ships but one or two on one flank) results in more defeats than victories.

Yeah, I know.

Eventually, everyone gets its Kai Ni?

Pills were not bad either.

Here is the thread I was talking about: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/4108-whats-your-favourite-movie-featuring-a-warship-and-why/

The common wisdom that everything that came out of an Italian factory was useless, inefficient or unreliable is baseless and comes out of wartime propaganda. Sure, the Italian industrial base was not up to the job of producing the weapons needed, but that doesn't mean that we didn't do something right. Other than Italian torpedoes, look stuff up under Cannone da 90/53, manned torpedo, Motobomba FFF, etc. etc.

This conversation should be moved to the Off Topic section. Also, I think we already have a thread about war movies.

While a certain degree of unreliability cannot be eliminated, perhaps it's too much to say that torpedoes were "notoriously unreliable weapons", meaning that every time a torpedo was fired the result depended on a coin toss to decide if it was going to detonate or not. Notoriously, both the USN' Mark 14 and the Kriegsmarine's G7a suffered from problems to the detonators which hampered their performance, true. But not every torpedo used by all belligerent powers performed likewise: the Italian torpedoes, for example, despite suffering from early problems with the warheads (although not as prominent and as important as the American and German torpedoes), had a reputation for having a good reliability and performing well. So, while what OP said about the angle of impact may be considered, for me it would be too much to conclude that all torpedoes were unreliable weapons (as in, weapons whose reliability when used dropped below a tolerable level, like the Mark 14, for example), and that this should be set as standard for the torpedoes in game.

It kinda reminds me how the UK didn't want to switch to the metric system because it was being implemented by their arch-enemy France... Anyway, I understand it's kind of a sensitive thing for you. So, let's give time to time. In the meantime, having the possibility to choose the units in-game seems alright with me.

Alright, but that doesn't mean that a country cannot think about switching gradually towards the more rational system. It's not like Europe learned to use the metric system overnight.

Ooh, right. Such a crystal clear and apparent logic. How could I have forgot about that?

XD

Thanks to you both. Don't misunderstand me, though; I am not attemtping to minimize or suggest that we ignore this happenings. I'm merely pointing out that this particular fact is well known, and that there are others, that can still be interesting but are much less known and discussed. That's all.

Kongo is a tier lower, is faster and has a smaller silhouette, although she is less protected.