Historynerd

I don't understand... you say you don't play carriers, you say that you might be wrong, yet still you pass judgement on them. Wouldn't the appropriate action be to not pass criticism on them, until you have played them if you will?

Good idea; those were quite successful ships, I think.

It is difficult, but it's not "ridicolous", IMHO. One must learn to do both things, and in time he can succeed. And IRL warships could ran aground even when not firing. Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_disaster

Better armed... and what about the claimed poor performance of British shells? Besides, if the Germans wanted to disengage, to keep the contact it would have been necessary to pursue them; and pursuing in less than optimal visual conditions (as it was at the time) meant risking walking into a trap of destroyers, or perhaps submarines (there weren't any, but the British commanders thought that they might be); it's the same reason Cunningham at Punta Stilo didn't try that hard to keep contact with the Italian fleet after the two Italian battleships had turned away, because he didn't want to play by the enemy's rules (those were his own words). Moreover, in a previous sortie of the Grand Fleet, in not that poor visibility two battlecruisers (the Australia and the New Zealand) had collided; would his entire fleet not risk such happenings if he were to change formation, since the column formation wasn't exactly very flexible? And what if his formation got loose? The results of the Victorian navy were that captains were supposed to execute orders, and not rely on their own judgement; it was something like that that caused in 1893 the collision between HMS Victoria and HMS Camperdown, in clear sight and during peacetime, because they executed an order without thinking. Dispersed more? And do what? Where were the dreadnoughts needed? Challenge the Austro-Hungarian or the Ottoman fleet in their secure harbours and coasts, exposing themselves to mines and torpedoes? Escorting convoys?

Perhaps, but signalling and information exchange was notably poor in the Grand Fleet; the signal flags and lamps had serious limitations, and the radio wasn't perfect either. Anyway, what you propose is based on the assumption that the Grand Fleet wished a final confrontation with the High Seas Fleet, and that was against common sense; the public could howl for a decisive battle, but mantaining the status quo was more important, and could be achieved without risking losses that might imperil the Grand Fleet's superiority. Besides, even if the High Seas Fleet would have been destroyed, how would the strategic situation have changed? It's unlikely that the Baltic might have been open to Entente shipping, given that one doesn't need a battle fleet to make its transit at least extremely costly (mines, aircraft, torpedo boat ambushes...). The speed difference is what enabled the High Seas Fleet to escape into the night; Jellicoe's formation for the night was too fast and allowed the bulk of the German fleet to sneak past its tail and through the destroyers, which proved remarkably ineffective.

Well, technical is good enough for me; "break formation" is something more akin to what happened to the Central Striking Force during the Battle of the Leyte Gulf, after Admiral Kurita gave the "general attack" order. And I think it took him way longer to regroup his ships, while time for him was perhaps even more vital.

Perhaps the answer would be to not let the enemy cap; so far, most of the instance I saw was that most of the team formed a lemming train on one side, and forgot all about the other, letting the enemy come in and cap. Well, it's not that it wasn't tried to use them as scout, it's that they weren't optimized for the role; it's one of the reasons why the Omaha-class was built. However, while the action of the German destroyers was important, perhaps it's too much to say that it caused the Grand Fleet to "scatter" and "break formation"; it was more like it forced to break off contact, which was not regained, but still in a recognizable formation.

Thank you.

It's true that destroyers were nothing but scouts, and that their job did not include torpedoing of enemy ships when they had the chance? Really? This is not fanboying; it's something called historical truth, and I have provided examples of battleships (just to say one class of ships) which felt the fury of their torpedo runs. If you have little success against torpedoes in game, well, I can't but sympathize (it's not like I am amazing, and a good share of my games have ended up with me eating too many a torpedo), but that doesn't mean you can propose some absurd tweaking that goes against every bit of history that this game can still cling to.

Well, I knew that the AA guns of the IJN ships were not of exceptional quality and had a lot of issues, but this shows that even the way they were employed was rather dismal. I guess that really some more ships wouldn't have added that much to the AA umbrella. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

They could do that? Well, that does explain something...

By 1944 I think that the two Fuso-class battleships were also on the list of expendable ships, and it seems they were kinda considered as such by many Japanese sailors and officers (at least according to Anthony Tully and what he says in The battle of Surigao Strait); but by that time the Decisive Battle doctrine was already down the drain, I think. Well, it's understandable that they had to offer the US Navy something they had some chance against if they wanted to lure them out; and it's obvious that had the majority of the Combined Fleet been kept near Midway and been spotted later Nimitz wouldn't have risked his two Task Forces against that. His whole battle plan was based on the assumption that as far as air power went they were more or less even (three carriers plus Midway against four). Still, I think we can agree that the screening ships of the First Carrier Striking Force didn't have a lot of AA power to them; of course, the IJN command didn't expect the USN carriers to be already there, and I guess it's rather difficult to blame it for not believing that the American planes could overcome or slip past the cover of the CAP, as it eventually turned out... still, perhaps they could have spared a few more ships (but it's easy to judge knowing how the whole thing turned out).

If you expected something on the line of another game, and saw something different, it's hardly anyone's fault. Don't blame us if you find out that we have a different outlook on ship classes than you.

If one comes and claims that destroyers are not supposed to attack with torpedoes, but merely act as a scout, I think it's within my rights to tell him that in my opinion he is badly mistaken and why is that. I do not believe, however, that I have insulted him or wished his death or something. Moreover, while I can agree that perhaps the stats are not everything, they can say if someone has had a balanced experience in all kind of ships, and especially if he has had a fair degree of experience in the class he's currently talking about; if he hasn't, then it's perhaps correct to point it out, and suggesting politely that he should get to know them more before laying critique. For example, I have yet to play CVs; for this very reason, I do not feel confident in giving feedback about them.

Have you bought a premium bundle that gives you access to the CBT? If so, login in the main WoWs page with your credentials, and you will be able to download it. Also, pliz use better grammar.

Of course; sorry for being nitpicky. But you can't unsee their role in taking on enemy warship if needed, either. Both are important, and both have to be remembered, not just one.

Erm... actually, their name comes from their being technically "torpedo-boat destroyers", when they first appeared...

Destroyers must only scout, and must not try to torpedo enemy ships, you say? IRL, there are a few battleships who would disagree... just ask SMS Seydlitz, HMS Marlborough, and Fuso, just to name a few BBs that were hit by torpedoes fired by DDs... In other words... if I am in a DD and I see a BB, my first thought is "Can I make a torpedo run?" and if the answer to that is yes, then I start spouting torpedoes as fast and as accurately as I can.

This thing (the monitor Fàa di Bruno) had a top speed of 2,5 knots, a maximum armor thickness of 110 mm, and other than the two 381 mm guns it only had four 76 mm AA guns. Hardly a killer weapon; useful as a floating defense battery, though. Anyway, does anyone remember the Battle of Imbros? When two monitors met full-fledged warships, and were unable even to scratch their paint. So, that would probably require a completely separate game mode for them. I'm not sure I want it.

I respect your idea of fun, but I don't share it. Sorry.

Disposable battleships? For the IJN doctrine no battleship (except extremely decrepit ones) was already considered expendable (it would change, though, during the conflict's course). Cruisers... well, that might have been easier, but cruisers can't compete with a battleship even in a shore bombardment mission, especially if there had been reluctance at expending the heavy cruisers. Anyway, it's not that the "scout doctrine" was non-existent, it was merely separated from carrier duties: scouting was supposed to be performed by battleship and cruiser aircraft. While having potentially more problems in transmitting findings than aircraft already belonging to aircraft carriers, there wasn't a problem per se in this; it was a rather heavy stroke of bad luck when the lone scouting plane that malfunctioned was the one assigned to the sector where the American fleet was located. I'm not sure that the submarines would be of much help in locating the US fleet; after all they missed it on the way out. It's not easy to spot even a big fleet with a submarine, unless luck is on your side. Anyway, one of the reasons the IJN carriers got pasted so badly at Midway was that they lacked AA cover; what did they have as escorts? Two battleships, two heavy cruisers, one light cruiser and eleven destroyers. Meanwhile the First Fleet (Yamamoto's main body) and the Second Fleet (the Invasion Force), which couldn't support directly the First Carrier Striking Force, absorbed as much as five battleships, eight heavy cruisers and a lot of light ships. Meanwhile, the Northern force sailed away with four battleships, three heavy cruisers and another good load of light ships. That's a lot of AA firepower that stayed mostly silent. For what? So why this spectacular failure of "Schwerpunkt"? Because someone was so obsessed with the "decisive battle" that saw the First Carrier Striking Force as a mere tool first to pulverize Midway and then to bait the American fleet, so that the battleship could swoop in, sunk it with their big guns and have their dream come true. Too bad the Americans weren't kind enough to follow this plan.

You sound exactly like that [edited] game reviewer on Youtube... he played one game with the Renault FT to "review" WoT, got hammered, and declared the game to be bad (and he deactivated comments, to boot). Try again, and have patience; if something doesn't seem to work, look around the forum and try something else that it's advised to you. You might end up pleasantly surprised.

I met some of them, once... Honestly, it's not like I don't want people to talk the way they want, but if someone is not in a division, yet they keep talking in the common chat at length (and I mean very lengthy posts, so much that I wondered if they were playing at all), it's rather distracting. I asked them as politely as I could to please stop; they laughed at me and kept blabbering. Luckily it was just that one time.

Guys, I'm afraid we have another troll here... so we better let him alone...