Historynerd

The best we can look up to is the H-41 proposal, as Tier X battleship, it seems. WG doesn't want anything in the game with a bigger gun than Yamato's. Also, if you don't mind, it's written "Deutschland"...

The Moskva is a rather impressive cruiser, true, but it's not on the same level of both "large cruisers". The Project 66 was seemingly meant to trump the Des Moines, but without going so up the scale to blur the line between heavy cruisers and battlecruisers. Also, it looks like that for the Italian tree (and namely Deamon93's proposal for the Tier X cruiser), we might end up with something that trumps even the Moskva's 220 mm guns in terms of caliber. But it still won't be able to go toe-to-toe with either the Alaska or the Type A.

Pretty straightforward, in my case. Everything Italian! Especially Duilio- and Littorio-class BBs, Duca degli Abruzzi- and Zara-class CA/CLs, Capitani Romani-class DDs (yes, I know they were classified light cruisers IRL, but they fit the bill for Tier X DDs). You sure know how to restrain your demands! XD Seriously, now, I'd like to see the Alaska- and the Type-A as well, but the discussion about them in the forums only highlighted how much of a pain they would be to be balanced. I do hope something can be worked out, though. However, the Design 1047 can work as a Tier 7 Dutch (or "minor powers" tree) BB. Nothing that divisive about her; she's basically a somewhat stronger Scharnhorst. I'm skeptical about the Ise-class hybrids; we're talking something that in that form is theoretically able to perform in either role, but that in practice might find out to be too weak in either. Navies studied hybrid projects throughout the interwar years, without them supplanting dedicated surface or air warfare ships. In any case, I have lots of doubts wheter we'll see them in the game.

...I'm afraid there's a chance your wait might be an endless one. There's no assurance we'll see either Ise or Hyuga as BB/Cv hybrids...

What does this have to do with the N3? If you want to comment on possible British tree issues, you should post on dedicated topics.

I disagree; as I said, I consider a complete tactical victory one in which the enemy failed to impose his wish and instead submitted to that of his opponent. And I explained why I don't consider that this happened to the High Seas Fleet. The German side can claim to have inflicted worse losses on the British, and to have escaped very dangerous and unfavourable positions, slipping past the enemy to return home; but that doesn't change the fact that it was effectively lured into said positions, the worse for them, and that for the rest of the day and for the night all it did was trying desperately to survive and avoid the enemy. All due respect, but receptions as fleets come back to port hardly matter in strategical and tactical terms; if these counted, we should consider several engagements in the Mediterranean Sea during WWII as outstanding Italian victories, which they weren't (even in the few cases when they were victories of any kind for Italy). Actually, allow me to say that the High Seas Fleet sortied three times more in the North Sea; although it did not engage the Grand Fleet anymore, it doesn't mean that it cowered in port or in the Baltic for the rest of the war.

While I don't want to incite a discussion (there are other threads over in the historical section to do so), I would like to point out a thing. True, losses at hand, the advantage is with the German side. However, the German High Seas Fleet was, by all means, effectively outmaneuvered by the Grand Fleet; after the battlecruiser engagement, it was effectively drawn right under the guns of the British battle line, and to escape it had to resort to audacious maneuvers (that have a tendency to work perfectly during peacetime training, but to fail miserably in wartime, although in this occasion it has to be recognized that the German sailors pulled it off twice with great skill), and then its whole behavior was dominated by the pressing need of evading the opponent and reach home, to avoid a further engagement the next day; it managed to do so thanks to the unwillingness of the British side to engage in nighttime combat, the insufficiency of communications that precluded effective control-and-command at fleet level during the darkness (and which was strained already during daytime), and maybe even a bit of luck. Therefore, in my opinion it's only a qualified tactical victory for the Kaiserliche Marine. The Royal Navy failed to inflict losses on the opponent superior to its own, for various reasons, but it cannot be denied that it got the drop on the German battle line, that found itself in the very spot it wanted to avoid at any cost - facing in an unfavourable tactical position the whole of the enemy fleet; and it did the only feasible thing - try to run away and break off the engagement. In my opinion, a tactical victory is also determined by the ability to foil the enemy's intentions and execute yours, and this was clearly not the case: the High Seas Fleet was thoroughly surprised and, although it managed to evade the biggest danger, had to improvise and do its utmost to prevent a renewal of the battle. Sign that the initiative was on the other side, and it was the Grand Fleet that imposed its will over the opponent.

Very interesting.

This is one of the versions of what is commonly called the Costanzo Ciano-class, the one with eight 152 mm guns in two quadruple turrets; however, in the end the variant with three triple turrets, one fore and two aft, was selected.

Happened to me as well; now it's returned to normal.

The Kongo is a battlecruiser and therefore has weak armor (its belt is only 203 mm thick); therefore even heavy cruisers can citadel you with relative ease. I should not speak, as currently I don't have it, but I don't remember the Pensacola as a bad ship from CBT; easily spotted and with thin armor, true, but its firepower and agility compensated that, in my opinion.

Yes, it is a Wyoming; it's Mikan's (the blonde girl) favourite ship.

As it should be. A ship involved in a collision, even if it was the one that collided with the bow, was in immediate need of repairs and could no longer fight, so it was by all means rendered unserviceable for the time being. Besides, you're exaggerating. If you ram a destroyer with a battleship at full health, you will survive.

Are you accusing me of moving the goalposts? Look at this image: As you can see, the last few meters on each end of the submarine is not part of the pressure hull; therefore, damage there, while not exactly laughable, does not automatically endanger the submarine. Besides, we're talking about different things here, apples and oranges. Submarines are way easier to overturn if rammed, even by small warships, and the bow is not that important in their case, less than it is on surface warships.

If you ram a submarine in the side, there's a good chance of opening up the pressure hull, and even turn it upside down in case of a larger vessel, in which case the sub's a goner. However, if the submarine rams with the bow... well, damage's not that important. A submarine managed to return to base with the whole bow distorted at 90°, after ramming by accident a merchantman.

Hey, c'mon. I may know a few things here and there, but I am as fallible as the next guy. Sometimes, I have been proven wrong, and I acknowledged as much, because the other guy know better. But thanks for the compliment, anyway.

Just a thing. She was not designed as a light cruiser, but as a "treaty cruiser"; her "light cruiser" classification must have largely come to point to the difference between these ships and eventual battlecruisers, and also to emphasize their intended role as fleet scouts, the historical role of light cruisers. Her design does see influence from the preceding Omaha-class light cruisers, but all the navies had to build these cruisers from scratch, and largely relied on previous plans for light cruisers. The light cruiser/heavy cruiser division came later, at the London Naval Treaty in 1930. Accordingly, she was reclassified as a heavy cruiser (from CL-24 to CA-24 hull classification). However, her classification and her relative lack of protection (shared by pretty much all the other treaty cruisers of the first generation, anyway) did not make a light cruiser in capability as we may consider it, especially considering her firepower. Sometimes, a characteristic (or its lack) can make for some interesting classifications. For some time, the Italian Zara-class cruisers were classified as "incrociatori corazzati" (armoured cruisers), because of their high degree of protection; but they had little in common with what comes to mind when we say "armoured cruiser".

I'll explain it again, myself. The momentum of the force you're speaking about can also cause substantial damage to the whole hull of the ship, not just the bow. There are instances of battleships hit by torpedoes whose fire control towers were knocked out of their roller bearings (this alone would be enough to seriously hamper a ship's fighting efficiency); and whose decks were warped and curved by the force of their explosion. These forces however were small compared to the sheer physical force of an impact with a vessel weighing thousands of tons at least. As for Amagiri and JFK's PT boat, we are talking about a 2000 tons destroyer ramming a boat that displaced some 56 tons; no surprise that the former got cut in half. It's just a bit more difficult considering first-line warships.

This is not just about flooding, it's about damage, and the time it takes to repair said damage. And as I pointed to, the Indiana (that was struck on the side) took less time to repair than the Washington (which rammed her with the bow). Anyway, we are talking about a massive force (imagine, tens of thousands of steel going at a considerable speed, it's a monstruous force we're talking about). And then, such force can reverberate through the hull and cause damage to the whole structure of the ship, maybe even fatally compromise her. It's not like the bow was some sort of "crushable structure" like a today's car front; the shock was felt throughout the whole ship.

In my opinion, no. Look at the image provided above. These two battleships didn't sink, but they were effectively neutralized for the time being. It happened on 1 February 1944, Washington did not return to Pearl Harbour till mid-June, while Indiana was back in action by the end of April (which might also say that sometimes repairing a bow is worse, or maybe even just longer, than repairing a hull). It is coherent to me that after ramming a similar-sized ship, you are considered sunk as well, even if you rammed by the bow.

But she did not remain in the operations zone, did she? She was immediately withdrawn to be repaired. So, looks can be deceiving. Also, maneuverability, especially for fast battleship, it's not exactly an optional even against a similar opponent, and it is so even less when you think about possible aerial and torpedo attacks. Besides, if you are not forced, you don't push into battle one of your first-line ships, worthy pretty a penny of taxpayer's dollars and that it took years to build, when it's not in tiptop shape.

Besides, it's not like that in the previous conflict it was a ramming fest in every battle. At Lissa, it worked just once against a ship that was almost stationary, and during the War of the Pacific it happened the same (during the battle of Iquique, the Peruvian Huàscar rammed three times the Chilean Esmeralda, but by then the Chilean ship couldn't make more than 2 knots, so it was an easy target). If even a battleship rams a destroyer, it should expect considerable damage, period. Besides, who voted in favour, saying that it is realistic?

This discussion about smaller caliber HE shells might be interesting even beyond the Akizuki; for example, there was a suggestion in Italy to convert the older Da Giussano-class light cruiser (the first, and most controversial, Condottieri-type) into anti-air cruisers. Two proposals were made, the former more limited, that involved putting sixteen 90/50 stabylized single mounts (those put on the Littorio- and Duilio-class battleships), while the latter was more radical and involved rebuilding the bridge and renouncing to four 90 mm mounts in favour of two twin 135 mm turrets. Given WG's current stance towards mixed main armament, the second proposal is unfeasible, while the first might be implemented; but that would depend on wheter the 90 mm mounts could do enough damage to be worth it.

Repair cost go way up on Tiers 8-10, and so far the only antidote is either have premium, or farm money on lower Tiers. Although WG said they would reduce said costs, recently, but I don't know if they did.