Historynerd

Something about it could be done, I suppose. But I have my doubts about how well it could perform in either role. Sure, it looks fine in theory, but practice is another thing completely. As a battleship, you'd have a target area on your back, and reduced armament (eight 356 mm guns are not a very powerful layout for the Tier), while as a Carrier you would have only few aircrafts (IRL only 11 aircrafts were planned). The problem with "mixed" warships is that, in trying to perform two roles, they might find themselves not performing well in either. It happened IRL many times.

I saw it. But actually the standing orders about not helping survivors at all came because of the incident, but it's no big deal.

I wasn't making up excuses... they just seem better in the game than they were in real life. But if you tell me that IRL performance is not a prison in which stats have to stay, I'll just have to take your word for that.

Thanks, I'll look into it. But I feel somewhat weird looking at the main gun's stats... IRL it was renowned as having poor accuracy because of the single-cradle configuration (meaning that the barrels were so close together that when firing the muzzle blasts would interfere with each other) and the excessive muzzle velocity... so I don't know where they got the +1 accuracy.

On the list by maximum upgradeable stats, they say it's economical to operate. Is that wrong?

So, anybody interested in that brand new destroyer that I find so interesting...?

Wait, you can actually have two ships that are the same?

Did anybody notice this?

...Some WWI ships are already here. Take Kawachi, for example. About the other nations, give it some time. After they introduce the five main nations, their turn will come.

Cry me a river. We Italians had sizable tank forces and we fought several tank battles, undoubtedly more than the Japanese. Yet there is a Japanese tree in WoT already but not an Italian one; and it seems that it will have to wait after Czechoslovakia and Sweden, too. Compared to that, your problem seems really small...

Hood sank with 1418 men. Those men are remembered, honoured and often pointed to. Other instances in which even more men died in one fell swoop but not die in such a "glamorous" and "glorious" way have largely been forgotten. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident Before adding more tears to the many already spilt for the crew of the Hood, why not decide to use them towards other men who died tragically but who are not so easily remembered?

Jane's is a British pubblication. No surprise it uses the imperial measurements; but it doesn't mean that the rest of Europe uses that system.

Same idea. And for this reason...

Yet you talk about wasting lives just to feed the ranks of death, in name of something called "glory". You are contradicting your own words.

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. If you found yourself on an ancient battlefield, or even on an ancient warship, you would understand that talking of glory is easy, in a sheltered and cozy life. Those who saw war, either a hundred or two thousand years ago, would talk quite differently.

Because at Lepanto, the Saintes, the so-called "Glorious First of June" and Trafalgar, hundreds or even thousands of people didn't die in horrific ways, or weren't otherwise maimed and wounded causing them all sort of pains, leaving behind with no support families and loved ones. Because in the old Navies the discipline wasn't enforced by the cruellest discipline, to the point that a commander could turn a seaman's life into a living hell if he wished so, in perfect accordance with the Articles of War. If you are serious, you are clearly misguided. War has always been hell, make no mistake.

Because if you let him get close enough the enemy might attack your coasts (on which there were several cities of strategic importance, not to mention heavily populated) with carrier-based aircrafts. You might tell me that the land-based aircraft might protect them, but until 1940 the number of aircraft available to the USAAF was rather low; so I do have my doubts that they would have been able to adequately cover all of the potential targets. Anyway, I am being subjective; I am just giving my point of view. If you find a flaw in my reasoning, tell me, and if I can't explain myself it means I must be wrong. I'm not presenting myself as the ultimate authority on the subject, I'm just discussing a concept, as everyone could.

I wouldn't say that. For example, Erie is larger than a WWII frigate.

Have you looked at Ectar's FAQ thread pinned in the General Discussion section? Rest assured that if someone knew something about the British tree's release, it would be discussed. Since it isn't, it means we don't know anything about it yet, so it's useless to ask. As for the tree's structure, there are discussions open in the General Discussion section about it; so it's useless to open a new discussion here. For example, here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/12426-royal-navy-tech-tree-proposal/page__p__220027 Bottom line: use search feature next time, please.

About elevation, it depends; in some cases I think it can be single for all the guns in a turret.

And do you actually assume that somebody is going to take what you say seriously? Oh, and fun fact: during WWII Switzerland operated a number of merchant ships on high seas to ensure that some needed resources could be transported at all times.

A very constructive intervention. My compliments.

First of all, two units of the Alaska-class were completed, so this is not the place for them, as this whole section is dedicated to projects and designs that were never built. Then, this section is about the Kriegsmarine, not the USN. Learn to read, please, and avoid stupid mistakes like this one.

Ok, should have said "in as good a condition as the situation allowed". My point was, as ready as was humanly possible. All the other factors... you tell me.

And capital ships moving at high speed, maneuvering and at full readiness in war time. Yes, I think I'd go with that one as the one truly proving that a carrier can take on a battleship even when it's at its best, and still sink it.