Historynerd

I wasn't replying to your post, as I was merely pointing out the fact that this arrangement was chosen because it allowed to keep displacement down, both in the pyramid (Nelson and the Izumo design, probably), and in the dual quad-turret layout (the French ships). I know it was a case of faute de mieux, have considerable firepower and protection (and, in the French ship's case, speed, given that this was no priority for the Nelson) while keeping the weight as low as possible. I was just pointing out that, part because of the displacement constraints (all ships have those, but on some they prove to be a true pain in the butt) and part because of design decision that I can't figure very well (although I guess there must be some explanations for those, and very logical ones), the Nelson wasn't exactly a pinnacle of design brilliance, as it layout was more influenced by political considerations than a determinate design mentality.

That is true, but both the Dunkerque and the Richelieu had their armament in quadruple turrets, a layout even more troublesome than the triple turrets on the Nelson. I can concede the point about a "capable weapons platform", but "battle tested" seems a bit too much, compared to ships that had much heavier and challenging engagements (say the South Dakota and the Washington, or even the Duke of York); the Bismarck was far from its ideal shape by the time its last battle began, the relativity of forces was heavily against it, and her firepower was gradually reduced and hampered until it ceased after forty minutes of fire, after which the British ships kept shooting for fifty minutes more. The Rodney did well, but it had relatively little to fear. Other happenings instead point to what might be weaknesses of their design. For example, when Nelson was torpedoed by an Italian torpedo-bomber, her long and unprotected bow suffered a degree of damage and flooding that raise doubts about the convenience of leaving too large of a ship's length unprotected against such offences; and the fact that it took a rather long time (from October 1941 to May 1942) for the Nelson to be fully repaired only deepens my doubts at the practicity of such layout. The Dunkerque-class was more apt at fighting the German panzerschiffe and the Scharnhorst-class than at slugging it out with more orthodox (and armed) battleships, I fully concede that. However, their design proved instrumental in designing the Richelieu. As for battle testing, given that few were the battles between battleships throughout the conflict, I'm afraid that the Richelieu-class cannot claim any (exclusing the engagement at Casablanca, which again is not very significant, both because of the staticity and incomplete status of the Jean Bart, and both because a fight against battleships such as the Massachusetts were not predicted by the designers). But I've already said why I don't consider the Nelson "battle tested", either; not more battle tested than were, in regards to surface engagements, the American battleships that fought at Surigao Strait.

That is true, but on the other hand with such designs you lose something in other areas, it's not a win-win situation; take the Nelson-class, on which this layout was chosen because of the need to keep the displacement down and still fit a powerful armament. Results were not exactly encouraging (although not total failures, of course): you got a ship with a main armament that gave a lot of trouble (although they were the first RN battleships with triple turrets, and the first turrets such as these created issues to everyone), an armor layout that give me a few doubts (for example, the belt seems a bit too short to cover up a lot of space, compared to other designs, and the long and unprotected bow section might have been a nightmare in case of torpedo attacks). The Dunkerque- and Richelieu-classes are much better examples on what can be achieved with such a design, in my opinion.

Can we consider another factor that may balance things out between BBs detonating everyone else as they like (apparently...) and DDs or even CAs that can't return the favour, again apparently? I have been magazined once by a torpedo; a DD sneaked up to my New York and let out its fishes. I countermaneuvered, dodged all but one of them... yet that single torpedo detonated me. So, it may not happen that often, but a DD or even a cruiser can turn the table on BBs with their torps. So, on the long run their chances of detonating an opponent might even out.

By then she was already decommissioned, so it was probably just Oklahoma, without the "USS" prefix, I guess.

Seriously, I can't see a difference; they definitely look the same. Fifteen seconds, and voilà, I'm in.

...Am I the only guy around for whom loading times were fine both before and after the patch? Or is my PC the chosen one or something?

He meant that IRL they suffered too from dispersion issues, as their guns were mounted too close together in their turrets. In this respect, it seems that WG gives nations a general dispersion value, and be off with it. Wonder how Italian ships (notorious for such issues) will perform... but that depends from the style they'll be supposed to have.

It didn't happen immediately as she was struck by three torpedoes, it happened minutes later, as she capsized. Apparently, because of a fire in the 4-inch ammo magazine that spread to the 15-inch magazines. The Barham is only an example on how detonation animations might be in-game.

If you're Italian, then yes, we are compatriots! The Regia Marina is definitely coming, but we don't know when; it's likely we might begin to see something somewhen next year, as currently WG is focusing on German BBs and British CA/CLs, and they'll probably get some other RN line after that. Then, it'll be a coin toss between the French and the Italian navy. For further discussion and news, I'd advise you to follow Deamon93's topic about the Italian tree; he is very active, and he posts every bit of news he can find about it. Anyway, I cannot help you about the in-game situation with the Zero and the Wildcat. My observations were all about the IRL situation and comparison between them; in-game, I have no experience whatsoever with carriers, so I'm the least person you should ask. Sorry...

Do we really need six different topics about the Warspite? You have the right to complain if you feel it's underwhelming or it has been nerfed too much; but is it so hard to look for an already existing topic before opening a new one?

I personally feel that it's not the same thing. It would be better off if the detonation would have some different (and bigger) animations. Anyway, people have different opinions and feelings on "fun". You have yours, and it's perfectly valid, and I recognize it as such; however, others have theirs, and you have to recognize that, too.

In-game, detonations can happen in ways that have no connection to poor ammo handling. Once I was detonated in my New York by a DD's torpedo. How was my poor ammo handling cupable then?

That may be how you feel and what you think; and there will be lots of players who agree with you. I feel and think otherwise, though; and I think there are quite a bit of people around here who might agree with me.

I agree with this. I personally feel that it adds, rather than substracts, to the fun you can have.

In relation to an answer to one of your comments, here is the topic I was talking about, detailing the TDS system of the Littorio-class battleships: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/38017-the-pugliese-underwater-protection-system/

Is there any reference to the German battlecruisers firing their torpedoes at the Grand Fleet? All the sources I know do not talk of this, and the picture I got was that only the destroyers launched torpedo attacks on the British battleline.

...A measly 6 kills with my Isokaze.

Guys, I know that. My observation was only about the IRL RoF, which in practice often turns out to be rather lower than the one claimed in theory. In game, it can be pretty much anything, I know it well.

RoF is one of the stats more easily tweaked for balance, so we have to see what it might be. However, NavWeaps notes this:

They are? Man... and here I thought it was just Italians who loved to get complicated with cship classifications!

.Alright, then be more precise next time. Saying generalizing things such as "no American plane" might be confusing; say "early US fighters" instead.

...All due respect, but there's quite a bit of difference between what an anti-tank round has to do and what naval shells must do, either AP or HE shells. It's far from the same thing (if nothing else, because AA shells are set to burst at a given altitude, while HE shells have to burst when hitting an obstacle). The Italian 90 mm AA gun of the Littorio- and the Duilio-class battleships was similar (in fact, it directly inspired) the Cannone da 90/53 used by the Regio Esercito, which was the Italian version (and every bit as good) of the German FlaK 18. But although similar, they did not use the same ammo, because the land gun eventually had to fight tanks. In contrast, the naval 90 mm had only AA shells, which were not the same as pure HE shells, even though on one occasion it was used against ships (with no results, though). Even if they put in an AP shell (which will apparently be needed on lots of DDs), I'm still doubtful. Even though they might have good penetration power, their small caliber would make their alpha rather low. Besides, AP would be useful only when fighting cruisers, mostly. But given the nature of high-tier cruisers, why bother? They wouldn't do much.

...I kinda knew that already. I'm talking about this: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_39-65_t98.htm So, no questions about its AA proficiency, absolutely; it's its performance against ships that I'm a bit worried about.