Historynerd
-
Content Сount
4,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Battles
848
Everything posted by Historynerd
-
What we know about Ships: Updated 05/04/2017
Historynerd replied to mr3awsome's topic in General Discussion
The point is, the Omaha's 6-inch and the Pensacola's 8-inch guns were not much better in that respect, either; the former's twin mounting had the gun axles only 71 cm apart, while the latter were 117 cm apart (to point it out, the Des Moines's guns were 216 cm apart, almost double the space). The Kirov's guns were 83 cm apart. It's true that in the Pensacola's case it seems that the most part of the dispersion was because of high muzzle velocity and "poor shell seating" (and I admit I don't know what the latter means). -
If the movie ,,FURY,, was an WoT battle..
Historynerd replied to anonym_5SsDJH3ePhJT's topic in Archive
...Or at the very least in the Off Topic section. -
This is the present gameplay.. Pure [edited]
Historynerd replied to anonym_5SsDJH3ePhJT's topic in Archive
Oooh, my eyes... Moderators, a kind advice: -
If they give that to you, will you let WG modernize them battleships?
-
The problem is that, if they give us an Italian subforum, they have to get someone to moderate it. That means letting go of some $$$. Unless the number of Italian players increases dramatically, I'm not seeing that anytime soon.
-
[POLL]Name of the T10 German BB "Grossdeutschland"
Historynerd replied to Spellfire40's topic in General Discussion
Then what's going to happen when all those German destroyer with numbers and not names come knocking at the door? -
I voted for third option; keep them, although I want them to happen seldomly. And, OP, either you want a serious discussion, in which case you should use a neutral tone and leave jokes to trolls, or you are making a troll post, in which case you can use everything in the human language. Given that you wish for a profitable discussion, next time take the initiative yourself, and don't just assume that people will understand sarcasm, especially certain peculiar kinds of it.
-
Biased poll is biased.
-
That's what I believe as well. That's what I was talking about, mentioning the Caracciolo-class; had they entered service, in the 1930s they would have likely received a modernization similar to the one done to the older battleships, with pretty similar aesthetic results. If someone wants so badly to have unmodernized BBs, I guess some "historical" mode could be whipped up in some way...
-
I warn you, this might be borderline NSFW...
-
Those are also factors to keep in mind, but in general I feel that the Germans had better cards to play to begin with. It's a given that what happens largely depends on how you play them.
-
Sure - if they could spot them with the needed anticipation. but in bad weather (like on that day) there were quite some chances of the British ships spotting the enemy while being already under their gun's range. In which case a few knots advantage would not have prevented serious damage. They would have been under fire for some time, before managing to get out. Also, there's a reason why after this Jellicoe decided that in the future not just a squadron, but the whole Grand Fleet would sortie to support the battlecruisers. A speed advantage, especially if relatively limited (given that it also seems that the German battleships were able to keep up a little better than what the official numbers say, apparently), works only if you have time to use it; and it's not always that you get to use it.
-
That depends; intelligence doesn't amount to much if one does not take care that such informations reach the operative commands in time. Also, the British sometimes made some pretty foolish decisions. Take the Raid on Scarborough; six british battleships and four battlecruisers almost met twenty-two German battleships and battlecruisers. This was precisely the encounter the German had hoped for, a detached and weaker part of the Grand Fleet ripe for the taking by their whole fleet. Of course, it wouldn't have been a war-winning battle; but such a reverse would have seriously eroded the British edge in capital ships and would have been a morale catastrophe.
-
This totally made my day!|
-
By the way... does someone know what place "Atlantida" is? Call me ignorant, but I am lost...
-
...And, somehow, we derailed the whole topic! Well, no big deal, since the topic was a dead horse anyway, but I still feel somewhat bad...
-
We could also argue that, even though they sank more ships, the Germans ended up facing the entirety of the enemy fleet (the anathema of their whole strategy), and spent the latter part of the engagement trying their darnedest to evade the enemy and reach the safety of their home port (which, it has to be acknowledged, they did, thanks in part to the fact that at night the British fought in a lackluster way). We could discuss wheter a "tactical victory" is not merely one in which your side inflicts more damage on the enemy, but has also kept the initiative and forced the enemy to react to your movements.
-
Yikes.
-
I don't dispute the general statement - I too believe that, even on tactical terms, the British came out on top (especially considering that the Hochseeflotte twice blundered into the worst possible situation, and barely managed to get away). However, I'd like to point out that the Hoschseeflotte did come out of the harbour again and sailed the North Sea - three times, to be exact.
-
All true; however, by the time the Capitani Romani began their trials, the time for such publicity stunts was over, so the three ships of the class that were completed ran them in a more sensible way. And they were reported as being truly capable of reaching 39 knots on wartime loads, during active service. They are the exception of that rule. Rule that was not followed only in Italy, moreover. It seems the Marine Nationale did something of the sorts, too.
-
In this case, I don't know much about German destroyers! The only thing I think I got is that apparently those twin 150 mm turrets were too much. Honestly, I never grasped the logic to fit even on destroyers as large as those weapons so large, I might be wrong, but I believe that they ended up being more trouble than they were worth. Her speed of 43.5 knots was reached on trials without her armament (that was fitted in URSS). If she's anything similar to her little sisters of the Capitani Romani-class, I'd be inclined to believe that on full load she could have managed 39 knots without problems.
-
I found this on the NA forum. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/9009-tashkent-the-blue-cruiser-of-the-red-fleet/ It seems that she got some structural damage in a heavy storm, enough to cause cracks in the upper deck. However, it also seems that she managed to stay afloat to be towed back in port even though she took on some 1900-2000 tons of water... Maybe I'm wrong, but that does seem a little bit impressive. Anyway, thank you for making me curious enough to go look up her career; I admit I didn't kow much about it!
-
Oh, look, yet another topic...
-
Destroyers specifically jap ones.
Historynerd replied to Obsessive_Compulsive's topic in Newcomers' Section
Just a detail, if you allow me. It would be better if you used the word "japanese" or even "IJN" (Imperial Japanese Navy"), instead of "jap".
