Historynerd

How good would their guns be against ships? IRL, it seems that these weapons, while excellent AA guns, were just that, with no dedicated anti-ship shells. Besides, 100 mm seems a little bit underwhelming as a caliber, even against DDs.

I disagree about the "very weak armour". The main belt of the Fuso is 305 mm thick. It only feels underwhelming because the New Mexico's armor by comparison is better, and with the USN battleship you can angle like a boss (while on the Fuso you must expose your broadside much more to unleash all of your firepower); also, all those magazines in her hull make it easier to actually citadel (or even magazine) her. In short, they have to make her pay for her impressive range and fast rate of fire.

That's true, especially with the F4F-4 (a version not very liked by the pilots, as its increase in firepower was not felt as particularly needed, and it cost speed, maneuverability and rate of climb); if you mean, the early war American fighters (like the Wildcat or the P-40 Warhawk). As far as I know, the F6F could outclimb the Zero. However, I've also read that the Zero was not as good as the American fighters while diving... something about a low "never exceed velocity". And allow me to say, if an American fighter is trying to outturn a Zero... well, losing speed in turns is the least of his problems.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but IRL radial engines were more resilient to damage because they were air-cooled, while liquid-cooled inline engines only needed a scratch to start leaking coolant and overheat.

I personally believe that the reclassification of the four Kongous was just a case of semantics. Basically, they called them battleships because their speed was no longer high enough to classify them as battlecruisers. This might be alright (I've read that the Royal Navy at some point did the same, classifying any capital ship being able to go faster than 24 knots a battlecruiser disregarding anything else), but to me it doesn't make them "true" battleships.

Ok, seems it was just a bad streak. She doesn't seem too hot to me now (maybe I was too dumb, or too lucky, I don't know), but she still can perform well. It's up to me to make sure she does. Although the dispersion does seem pretty erratic. I've had quite a bit of salvoes that gave me only one hit, with the usual 1K overpen. BUt nothing too devastating. When I see a NC I usually smile. Maybe I'm just lucky, but so far every NC skipper I've met presented his broadside to me at one point or another... and I found out that my 14-inch shells can deal pretty well with his belt armor.

In-game, I don't know a thing. IRL, there's more about a fighter's efficacy than its ability to dogfight. Just because the Zero was the better dogfighter, had incredible range and was piloted by very fine pilots, it doesn't mean that it was"much superior" to the F4F Wildcat. If the pilot in the Wildcat knew what he was doing, and refused to oblige the opponent by engaging in a dogfight, then the game was not going well for the Japanese fighter. The instinct to dogfight is pretty powerful, though. In the Mediterranean and in Africa, the British Gloster Gladiator and the Italian Fiat CR.42 "Falco" clashed many times; the former was outperformed by the latter, but was more maneuverable and had better armament. If the Falco would engage in a dogfight, then he was most likely going to lose; it became pretty evident in the first months, but even by the latest encounters there were still some Italian pilots that rushed in and dogfighted the British biplane, instead of "boom and zoom" as the most experienced pilots did, with good results. (Side note, are we going to see this match-up, after we get a British and, hopefully, an Italian CV tree? )

As I said, it involves an "if", which in my opinion is rather substantial; but who knows, WG might give it a try, so it might be possible, Any ship when stock is rather underwhelming, although the range difference on the Fuso is rather big, and it looks like there are other things going against her; she looks fine when fully upgraded, though. To what "old shells" are you referring? I have a few doubts about having to split stock and upgraded hulls... aren't there any more designs and proposals that might fill the gap?

An excellent explanation, old chap! The steps between turrets survived for long. We Italians contributed with this:

An interesting proposal. However, for the lower Tiers to work out, it does require what I see as a pretty big step, i.e. mixed-caliber main armament. I figure it might be possible, but I'm not sure if WG would implement that. I'm also a bit perplexed... could we really have guns with the same maximum firing range, but different trajectories and behaviour against armor, all player-controlled? Now, some questions about single ships: as of now, I'm not sure if the Kawachi, even with a major range buff, would be capable of staying competitive at Tier 4. Let's not forget that at Tier 4, other than the Wyoming (speaking of regular ships, not premiums), we can expect (probably) ships with considerable more firepower than the eight-gun broadside that the Kawachi can muster. the opposite problem is for the Yamashiro; a terrible nerf would be needed for her to work at Tier 5, as her twelve 356-mm guns broadside, considerable protection and fast speed (even as built she managed some 23 knots) put her above what the foreign navies will likely have at this Tier. I'd like to know more about this early Amagi proposal before passing a judgement; could you point out someplace to read about it? I don't know well the No. 13-class battleship, so I cannot say if they're adequate Tier 10 BCs; however, aren't details about the 457 mm guns a bit sketchy?

Of course there is some Yuri! If the author of this thing hadn't put anything of the sorts, he would have been incarcerated, tortured and burned at the stake by the Spanish Inquisition!

So, all the turrets are leaking?

And there it is. How everything started... the origins' story without which you have no story...

I believe he is referring to the RoF of the game...

The Scharnhorst's guns were known as reliable and precise weapons, but in general one hit itself doesn't say much. A hit at a similar range might have been achieved by an Italian light cruiser, with its 152 mm guns that were notoriously suffering from huge dispersion pattern. Anyway, its guns were not particularly weak in terms of armor penetration, and I guess their limited alpha (because of the caliber) might be compensated by the high RoF. I too see them as viable BB/BCs.

They might reserve the battlecruisers for a separate line... the Kaiserliche Marine and the Kriegsmarine together have enough for a dedicated BC line.

But, with all due respect, you base their effectiveness on a precise situation, that can or cannot happen. So, 100% ineffective (game-wise)? No. Not exactly the Tier 2 equivalent of the Tirpitz's torps, and something you can live without? Yes. Of course, in my humble opinion. Besides, I highly doubt we'd see such low-speed torpedoes in-game, if we were, theoretically speaking, to get a low-tier BB with torpedoes. They'd be at least 40 knots, minimum.

Actually, some kept believing in close range engagements even after the dreadnought began arriving. Just look at the French dreadnoughts' pitiful maximum elevation of 12°, for a maximum range of less than 15000 m. You said it yourself, IRL they were ineffective. Is that not a reason to be highly skeptical of their implementation in-game? As for the situation you mentioned, I don't find myself so close to enemy BBs that often... and I found out that much faster torpedoes can still miss even at very close range, if you make a mistake or miss the fact that the enemy is starting to turn. They might be of help, sure, but I'm not sure if they'd be decisive. As it stands now, all the ship-launched torpedoes in the game are fired from trainable mounts, which are very evident and have limited arcs of fire. Featuring gyro-angled torpedoes fired from fixed tubes would be much more complex (and perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't they have a virtually unlimited arc?).

And that's why I said in-game. Range may be just a little bit worse than Russian torps, but you really think 27 knots is alright? One could almost make himself a sandwich before dodging torpedoes such as these! Besides, even at Tsushima, the engagements between battleships were such that use of torpedoes from them was impossible; the only realistic use would have been to finish a crippled enemy, to avoid wasting more ammunition, or having exhausted it. In the end (of course, it's easy to say that ex post facto), battleship torpedoes turned out to be as useful as ram bows.

The best I got as of now is the New Mexico; but I acknowledge that some tweak in the RNG could be spared. However, I absolutely don't believe that 97% of AP shells you fire at a cruiser overpen, or that you can't citadel a cruiser when he shows you his broadside. For pete's sake, every instance in which with the NM I met a North Carolina so far he was always showing me his broadside, and every time I slipped in a citadel! Never mind cruisers!

Same ol', same ol'... RNJesus prevents you from doing squat, yoiu always get killed by HE spammers... check, and check. Next troll thread, please.

Lucky you. The best I could manage was a half-hour trip behind two of these:

Per se, I think that the caliber only fixes directly the alpha damage; of course, it's not a detail, but it does not automatically imply that the ship will be underpowered (in terms of firepower).

...And again with torpedoes on battleships... Not to mention that the torpedoes probably used on the Hannover (and not fired from trainable mounts, but by fixed hull-mounted tubes, which would make them useless in-game) had a breathtaking range of 3700 m at 26 knots! Here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_PreWWII.php

Thank you. I have yet to see one with my own eyes, though. Something I'll definitely have to do at some point.