Historynerd

I am talking about the fall of shot, i.e. how you know that you are hitting or missing something.

Really? Go read some, and you might be surprised... you have no idea how much confused and "foggy" a naval engagement could be.

Which would not be very realistic, as ships IRL disappeared from sight all the time. Read some after action reports, you'll read of ships that appear out of nowhere and disappear likewise.

So, in "realistic" mode, no spotting mechanism, and ships would be rendered all the time? Isn't this a contradiction?

No problem. It should also be remembered that the incredible maximum ranges of 40+ km achieved by some battleships did not translate into a real possibility of hitting an enemy at that distance, where the fall of shot could not be viewed. I think that only with a spotting plane able to quickly communicate corrections would a battleship been able, perhaps, to engage an enemy at that distance with some hope of landing hits. Or even some electronic equipment, too. I'm not sure. However, in WWII this wasn't much possible.

This was a gun designed and built in the WWI era, and therefore I am skeptical that it can be counted amongst the WWII guns... It is true that this gun's performance was very good, that it was reliable and precise, and that thanks to improvements to the mountings and the fire directors it proved competitive also in WWII. However, its performance cannot be considered on par with that of the biggest and most powerful guns of that conflict. That duty would have fallen in the 406 mm guns designed for the battleships that never were. That maximum range is the one given by "super charges" that were reportedly never issued to ships. Therefore, its maximum theoretical range would be around the 30km mark, give or take some hundred meters.

I'm sorry, but I'm sure of the contrary. Submarines have no place in fleet engagements.

You're missing the point. What is a "seaplane tender"? They didn't have flight decks, only cranes to lower them on the sea or catapults to launch them; it meant that to recover the seaplanes they had to stop for several minutes. Moreover, seaplanes had worse performance than carrier-borne aircraft, as the weight of the floats impacted negatively on the weight and the aerodynamics. So, to me it's not correct to consider seaplane tenders as just one level down than normal aircraft carriers; they were something different, with nothing like their capabilities.

Compressed air might be enough to cause substantial damage to a ship. The destroyer HMS Khartoum was effectively wrecked after a 120 mm shell from the Italian submarine Torricelli hit its after torpedo mounting.

I am not convinced that seaplane tenders can be considered akin to full-fledged carriers...

Actually, both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were fitted with torpedoes during a refit, and not from the beginning. So, it was more like an afterthought than a former concept integrated in the ship. I am curious, though: wouldn't the presence of torpedo tubes be a danger to the ship, as a hit could cause them to explode?

Although, Tirpitz was given some torpedo tubes in a refit, if I'm not mistaken...

Yes. Wasn't it also called Motobomba FFF, or am I mistaking it for another weapon?

You think it's feasible? Really? I concur.

I may be wrong, but weren't those Italian designs that were instantly copied by the Germans...?

Surcouf was only the last of a line of unsuccessful and awkward submarines armed with heavy guns. The I-400 could carry a grand total of three M6A floatplanes, not much to mount an attack with. No, submarines won't be in game.

I know.

Although classified as a protected cruiser, the St. Louis blurred the lines between a protected and an armoured one, as it did possess a partial armoured belt (of the same thickness of the one fitted on the Monmouth. I'd say that the St. Louis and the Monmouth were more or less equivalent, with the Monmouth being marginally faster. And although in the game it might be a different thing (because I'm not sure that, apart from a few exceptions, we'll see armoured cruiser in game), IRL the Monmouth performed very badly, with many of its gun too low to be effectively used in anything but optimal conditions.

Yep... red eyes, tie, heels... She only lacks a Tommy gun, or a cat on her lap to pet while she explains her offer that no one can refuse, and she'll be perfect, right?

Sorry; the problem is that the pics on the wiki are tricky, I can't figure how they are shown... Look here, can you figure it out? http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/warship-girls/images/4/41/Veneto.png/revision/latest?cb=20150606061955

I'm not sure. It's difficult to say, because there are still lots of shipgirls to add... But I think Italians here will follow the example of Kantai Collection... and go further. Look: And more: This ain't propaganda, but sure it doesn't look very bright for us Italians... being jokes is just a little better than being monsters...

Thanks for the +1. But... these innuendos are overrated. Especially when they generalize.

What can I say? Reality is harsh. Also...

I forgot; did you know that she is near sighted (apparently because she can't distinguish Bismarck from Prinz Eugen)?

Not always. In the 1930s (I believe, but it might have been sooner), the Italian battleships were being referred to as male; what we might call in Italian "la Littorio" was called "il Littorio" (the former being the female article and the latter the male one). So, it's not an absolute rule.