Historynerd

Yes, what you said. So, this progress was not without problems.

I read that not everyone thought that armoured flight decks were without faults, however...

I'd like very much to play the Scharnhorst.

what is the message that making a post without taking care that its meaning is clear and apparent sends? "Lol, I have no respect for all those who might read this, let you try and get the sense out of this thing I've written, because I don't want to spend three seconds to write more slowly and make my post clearer" ...And we ended up OT. Again. @bismark121: Sorry. For misunderstanding.

It is related as long as said game has a community, and said community has a forum in which players can come and discuss things. For that, clarity is welcome, I'd think.

I don't want to play any games. I just want you to show some respect for those who come into this forum, want a calm and nice discussion about a variety of things, and sometimes can't get what the other guy is saying because said guy doesn't take a few seconds to check what he's typing, because he couldn't care less of what the others might want or feel. You want to keep doing what you do? Alright, suit yourself. But don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

I don't know... maybe because you type in a less than optimal way?

"you supposed to stay and fight that what you come out for" Did Scheer come out to fight the whole Grand Fleet? No, he didn't. Did Admiral Cristopher Cradock come out to fight the East Asia Squadron of Admiral Von Spee? Yes. But two of his cruisers went down; what did the third (HMS Glasgow) do, stay and get sunk too? No, it ran away. I guess that by your standards it should have remained. Bismarck and Graf Spee; that's two. What about all the other Kriegsmarine capital ships? Were they scuttled too? And please, please, try and type somewhat better, I can hardly understand your posts. It's disrespectful in our regards, meaning that you can't take one minute more to make your posts clearer for us.

Yes, but it would be like having all the minor navies post WWII being around with ex-USN cruisers and destroyers... it's not exactly the same thing. Besides, what good is a ship if it doesn't fly her flag?

"Most of the time"...? That was a fleet maneuver, so how can it be used just by one guy? Besides, would have been better to remain and be destroyed? Everyone tries to get out of there when he's faced with utter destruction without accomplishing anything.

There are the Italians, too... I think the Germans will take precedence, then the toss up will be between the Marine Nationale and the Regia Marina.

That's harsh... Besides, someone already discussed this potential ability, and there was a barrage of disapproval. It would be devastating, if it ended up being used by trolls.

Anyway, if we are talking about potential carrier-borne bombers, I'd like to see the Reggiane Re.2002; it was employed as a light bomber (max load: 650 kg) by the Luftwaffe after the Italian armistice. It might be ok for Italian carriers.

In this case, all divebombers are decidedly vulnerable, if nothing else because of the low altitudes they have to reach to drop their bombs.

There are plenty of examples of Stukas showing their vulnerabilities to fighters, when not escorted. On 12 may 1940 six French Curtiss fighters downed 11 out of 12 unescorted Stukas. On 18 August 1940, the "Hardest Day", StG 77 lost 15 Stukas, plus other damaged beyond repair, when fighter escort couldn't stop the enemy fighters. On 11 November 1942 15 Stukas were lost to Curtiss P40Fs. Anyway, it's debated wheter Shestakov was killed directly by Rudel's rear gunner, or by something else; Rudel himself does not claim him. By all matters, however, I'm no expert in air matters; if I have said something imprecise, I apologize. And perhaps I went too far in emphasizing the Ju.87's vulnerabilities. However, allow me to say that in some circumstances fighters aren't always on top of enemy bombers; the Gloster Gladiator (I admit it was obsolete by 1939, but it was still present in numbers in many secondary fronts, including Eastern Africa and North Africa) achieved very little success, with comparatively high losses, against the Italian medium bombers, mainly because their speed was relatively high. Its rival, the Fiat CR.42, was decidedly more successful against slower British bombers. In any case, are we talking about a medium bombers or about a dive bomber? Because the two things are different, and we can't mix them up. Because, just to say one thing, a medium bomber has better defenses than a dive bomber.

Well, yeah, but there are bombers that are more likely to get out of there in one piece, and bombers that are less likely to do the same, and I think that the Stuka belongs to the second category. I mean, tactical bombers are always in trouble against fighters, but some have still some degree of maneuverability, a decent top speed and a good defensive armament, while others flew like bricks, were rather slow and were not well armed.

Oh, I forgot... And they could at least mention in the Trivia section that in Italy we call it Duilio-class, and not Doria-class...

More like I am piqued by anything historical that has something Italian in it. Anyway, I'm going to send you the link via pm. Sorry, but after the last time I am more than cautious.

As long as it's alone in the sky... because if it's not...

So, you admit you find them sexy? XD XD XD

You do realize that without substantial fighter cover those things are just target practice for fighters...?

Don't know how it works, but sure it sounds like it won't smell like roses...

It's going to be a good day when we'll have Bismarck and Littorio... ...and people will notice that, in terms of firepower alone, the latter is better than the former! Ok, now that I have satisfied my darker (and more childlike) half, I hope against all hope that when Bismarck arrives we won't be flooded with five hundred threads of people crying that she sucks, that her guns aren't atomic guns, that her armor isn't made of adamantium or mithril or whatnot, blah blah blah. However, I admit I am a bit more interested in the Kaiserliche Marine bit...

There was also the tendency of calling the first six Condottieri-type cruisers (the one with very high speed and practically no armor) in an unflattering way that emphasized this little issue... "Cartoni animati" - it can be literaly translated either as "animated cartoons" (this is how we call toons in Italy), but also "animated cartons" (because there was only carton between the crew and an enemy shell).

Of course, but they do model some kind of dispersion, I think...