Historynerd

I have a dream... That one day someone will look in the forums before posting yet another thread about things such as these.

I prefer this version:

I have commented as well.

Right. Against 356 mm shells, your armor holds pretty good; but if you start getting pounded by 381 and 406 mm shells, then it's going to be ugly.

Oh, great. The drunkard's here. And she loves to get naked. All according to plan...

I'd say! I know what would be my reaction if I realized one of them were in the match:

I get that, with her unimpressive range when stock (and without the range upgrade), and her slow speed, it may be difficult to get in range of the enemy; and it's true that it doesn't take much to unlock both modules. However, her speed advantage doesn't change the situation that much (21 knots are what they are); and I used to sweat profusely when an aircraft squadron approached me when stock. You cannot do anything to them, and your turning isn't what it should be, so you might end eating one torpedo too many.

As for modules order, I don't know if it's the right idea to get the engine upgrade first... It's what I did when I started grinding the NM, but I'm not sure if it was a good idea. Perhaps it should be better to get the first hull upgrade before; not only does it give a nice AA boost, but it also improves the maneuverability.

Then what happens in WoT? A pack of hounds come by and eates the crew?

I doubt there were sharks surrounding every ship that sunk IRL...

Can I respectfully suggest that the distinction between a battlecruiser and a battleship should encompass more than just a speed difference to the former's advantage? Shifting between these definitions must consider also other factors. Also, while the 12-inch Mark 8 can boast armor penetration similar to the refurbished 14-inch rifles (although a bit lower in terms of vertical armor, almost equal against horizontal armor), shouldn't we remember that we are nonetheless talking about shells weighing 517 kg versus ones that weigh 680, and whose bursting charges was 7.9 kg versus one of 10.4? The only real advantage we're talking about is the rate of fire and a somewhat longer range, together perhaps with a longer barrel life. If we compare the weight that both ships can theoretically throw in a minute, we obtain some 13959 kg of the Alaska versus the 14688 kg that an old battlewagon can throw (with an assumed RoF of 3 rpm for the former, and of 1.8 rpm for the latter). So, overall, it doesn't exactly seem to me that in an old-fashioned fight the Alaskas would have thoroughly humiliated the old Standard-class BBs with 14-inch guns.

No money spent so far. But I might make an exception, should an interesting Italian premium come in the future...

Technically, they could all fire in broadside, but I doubt they might have done it in practice; it could have meant risking to damage the superstructure. Also, NavWeaps says the following: The preceding class of ships, the Helgoland, had an eight-gun broadside. This suggests that for practical purposes the above-mentioned was considered, disregarding the potential use of the other wing turret.

On Wyoming the amidships turret have limited arcs, but at least they're all on the centerline; it wouldn't be the case on the Kaiser. It would be almost as it is now on the Kawachi, with the turrets on the opposite side of the one you're firing with.

Apart from the mediocre performance of real-life British shells, that will not be a factor in the game, there are other factors that need to be considered before deeming the 30.5 cm gun at the same level of the foreign guns. Although its performance against armor (at least around 10'000 m) was similar to the British 13.5-inch and the American 14-inch gun, its range was slightly smaller (even compared to the American gun, although the latter's maximum elevation was smaller, 15° against 16°), and the advantage in terms of weight of shell and bursting charge is on course sitting on the side of the British and American guns. Their RoF was rather high, though. So, all in all, how will they be? If the historical route is followed, they probably should have flat firing arcs, have a relatively small reload time, similar penetration power to their Tier 5 counterparts but smaller damage to compensate. As for the difference between the Kaiser and the König, remember that the former may have the same ten guns as the latter, but the disposition is much more awkward, so that for all practical purposes it has only an eight gun broadside.

There have been previous threads about the Alaska; there is no clear consensus about where it belongs, BBs or CAs.

And that's also what I meant, by "different patterns".

Other than the reasons I've already mentioned (different performances, different shells, different patterns), there's perhaps the most important one: different ranges. But I see that on the Montgomery-class the 6-inch guns were quickly removed, so no biggie in this case; she can go with all 127 mm guns.

You might not see it, but there's a reason why, in all serious discussions about future trees and ships, mixed armaments are a no-go.

The guns are not the same; they have different performance, different shells, different patterns... lots of things influenced performance even between the same guns (IRL the New York's amidships turret caused a big surge in dispersion because the steam pipes that surrounded the magazine screwed with the need of keeping the charges' temperature the same), with outright different guns it's out of the question. The only way the Montgomery could be placed in the game is to pretend all of its guns are either 127 or 152 mm.

Pray tell those who stayed on HMS Wellesley how confused the sailors of the Albany were...

I admit I didn't remember about that one. Still, with all due respect, it's not that significant.