Historynerd

In Jordan's book, it says that turret I was indeed struck, but on the side, with the shell taking away the 90 mm gun fitted near for sub-caliber fittings; the glacis plate was bent and the turret was jammed until workers managed, using cutting torches, to make it serviceable again by afternoon. In the same salvo, a shell struck the barbette, and it broke up, with the base ricocheting through several compartments and bending the armoured deck. It looks like an extreme angle. The first 16-inch shell, however, might have been fatal: plunging through the decks, it exploded in one of the lower 152 mm magazine that was empty; had it not been so, Jordan says that the subsequent explosion would have "destroyed the after part of the ship". Another shell passed through the extreme section of the bow, and another passed through a funnel and clipped the edge of the armoured deck.

If I'm not mistaken, that phenomenon could not be solved; instead, it was circumvented by using delay coils, therefore making sure that the guns couldn't fire together.

That might be a valid alternative to dividing each turret in two. And it does look less complicated than having such a subdivision.

The quad-turret configuration was chosen because it allowed saving of weight on the whole design; it wasn't specifically about the weight of the armor. This feature (considering each turret as two semi-turrets for disabling and destruction purposes) may be put in because otherwise having one turret disabled entails a loss of half of the ship's firepower; and that might be too much. It's not a given, though. Losing 50% of the guns might be balanced against potentially higher rewarding gameplay. It's up for discussion.

The two Aoba-class ships were originally meant to be the third and the fourth vessel of the Furutaka-class, but then they were modified to fit from the beginning the twin 203 mm turrets; it was too late, however, to modify the first two ships, though, so two classes were born.

...or how about the Battle of Hasting went... What's next? The Battle of Kadesh? Can we please stop with this vicious circle? Can't we have a discussion about ships that might be really interesting gameplay-wise, without someone throwing jokes that are older than the Internet, and are borne out of simplistic and superficial readings of history?

I guess it was pure folly to hope that no jokes of that kind would make their appearance... Alright, whatever. In any case, this armament layout (common to the Richelieu and the Dunkerque, not quite so with the Nelson and the Izumo because in their cases you cannot point your bow at the enemy without masking some of your guns) may be an advantage or a disadvantage, as one can do great things with all that firepower on the bow, but he can also get bitten in the butt if someone gets the jump on him; we'll have to see how it plays out.

Dispersion seems to be pretty similar, considering the difference in range between the NY and the NM. Anyway, I heard that one of the drawbacks of the New Mexico is supposed to be poor dispersion; maybe that's compared to the Fuso, but it doesn't seem to me like its patterns are particularly large...

Interesting discussion about the technical details of the 203 mm guns, guys!

IRL, the New York suffered from bad dispersion because the magazine of the amidships turret was surrounded by steam pipes that took it from the engine to the turbines, and despite all the attempts to isolate and refrigerate it the powder's temperature was different than the other magazine's; and this was enough to make it behave differently.

More like it's a subversion of its intended role, if those who use it in such a way are such sore losers... This is probably what happened to the OP. Yet he shouldn't have assumed that Euan was insulting him when he cited the correct report feature.

Uuh. I'm not sure... I was talking about the four-step mission in which you get at first stage Haruna the captain, at second stage the ship ARP Haruna, then (I guess) captain Hiei at third stage and finally ARP Hiei.

It's possible to get reported for bad gameplay. It's also possible to get complimented for good gameplay. It's not the same thing. You don't get a report for the second thing.

Ah, in that case you only get the captain; you'll get the ship when you complete the second stage.

No, if you do the mission halfway, you get the ARP Haruna even you if don't complete the other half. I've completed the first half, but I couldn't complete the other half because I have no ships higher than Tier 6. Yet Haruna is sitting peacefully in my Yokosuka port.

If I'm not mistaken, the two Renown-class battlecruisers were originally ordered as two Revenge-class battleships (together with a third one, HMS Resistance, that was outright cancelled), whose order was suspended, and modified under the pressure of Admiral Fisher.

What? Euan did nothing but point out that it's impossible to get reported for "good gameplay"; it's possible to get reported only for bad gameplay. This does not mean he was accusing him to play poorly.

Given that it's possible either to compliment someone for having played well, or to report someone for playing bad, he said that, for you to receive two reports, those who did must have used the second possibility. The hiding icon was used because he didn't want to seem smug or arrogant, and give you the impression he was correcting you.

I followed both the anime and the manga (which is still running, btw); Yamato sure is there (good luck convincing WG to get you one, though), but Fletcher isn't.

What is a disgrace is that OP is either unable to or unwilling to take the time to write the name correctly...

^ This. How can teamplay be recognized by the server? Individual achievements are easily measurable; this are something that's completely different.

Well, if we presume equally skilled captains, then of course, strategically, the Kongo is capable of doing what needs to be done - push, defend, or both, while the New York struggles. From my experience, though, since you cannot keep sailing in a straight line, and sooner or later you just have to expose at least once your broadside to the enemy, the Kongo will have a harder time to actually score the hits that count on its opponent than the NY; the latter has more chances to citadel a Kongo. Not to mention that, even angled, the Kongo has a harder time bouncing shells than the New York, if the latter chooses to ignore the amidships turret (which one has to) and angles as much as he can. As for bow penetrations, I seem to remember it happened to me once; with a Kongo, I managed to citadel a New York in the nose. Happened only that time, though.