Historynerd

I disagree; the speed is really the only thing that bring down the NY, because either you can't catch up and you end up all alone, or you cannot even let out a shell before the other team crumbles and your team wins. The NY is more teamwork dependant than the Kongo, that can just go more freely because of her speed. Also, if you shoot at the New York from outside his range (and that's a good idea, because her 356 mm guns can hurt you), the dispersion of the Kongo tends to be not exactly low; and if the enemy NY doesn't oblige you by sailing into a straight line, it's not an easy kill. As for the turning size, it helps that the Kongo, as a battlecruiser, is decidedly longer than the New York; it has to pay for such good mobility, as it should.

A tank has a crew that at most comes up to 6, if I'm not mistaken, in the game as well as IRL. In WoWs, even the Tier II Japanese destroyer (the Umikaze) had a real-life crew of 141 officers and sailors. Do we need to say more?

Hmmm... the Regina Elena-class was designed by Vittorio Emanuele Cuniberti with a battlecruiser-like requirement in mind. They were weak in protection, but fast; however, they only had two 305 mm guns, which makes for rather low firepower. I'd look more for the Regina Margherita-class as worthy opponents for the Mikasa, in my opinion...

Now that I think of it...

Yes, but in this case the French followed suit.

Well, blame the Brits for that one.. I'll let the holy book (NavWeaps.com) answer this one: And also:

The looks are just irresistible... And if you say you don't like 'em... you might find yourself looking at the wrong end of a very scary 381 mm shell... XD

Not much happening; some introduction about the Soviet cruisers, plus two strips.

I see. Thanks for pointing it out. No problem. Just remember that there might be more complex explanations, instead of apparently simple lack of physical courage, behind certain behaviours. Both will come. The British a bit earlier, I gather.

I applaud your tastes, but there were many differences, even aesthetic ones, between the various classes that made up the series. Which one is more aethetically palatable to you?

A certain overcautiousness was a factor in the less than aggressive way in which Italian battleships and bigger cruisers usually fought. However, it cannot all be chalked up to that. A certain lack of fuel (of which battleships are avid consumers) played a part as well, an increasing and belated knowledge of what air power could do even to first-line ships, too, and an underlying desire to keep the fleet as intact as possible for political reasons as well. The Roma's turret was lifted in the air by the explosion of the magazines. No surprise there; such explosions are always of a terrifying magnitude.

It was not a matter of courage, of which Italian crews had plenty. The issue was a mixture of relative unimportance of capital ships, on which the Italians had heavily invested, compared to the defence of the sea lanes (in which the Italians, despite being relatively ill-prepared, did quite good), and the reluctance to risk them, since no ships bigger than a destroyer could be built in wartime, therefore in any operations order there was the limitating clause: "YOU WILL ENGAGE ONLY IN FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS". So, even when their crews would have been willing to risk taking a few hits, most of the time the Italian admiral decided to be rather cautious.

...Which is conspicously absent from that image, I have to point out.

True. For example, I read that an Italian light cruiser (the Raimondo Montecuccoli) might have managed to score a hit against the minesweeper HMS Hebe during Operation Harpoon, at a distance comparable to the ones surmounted by HMS Warspite and Scharnhorst when making their own record-setting hits...

Wasn't the Admiral-class supposed to be the counterpart for the German Mackensen-class? If so, when the latter ships were reported to be unlikely to be completed, the completion of the three British battlecruisers farthest in their construction was seen as redundant. In any case, I must raise a point. I know my mind works mostly in one direction, but I cannot help it. If we have the Richelieu in the poll, why can't we have one of the three Littorio-class battleships, too?

Just saw Pastaiolo in the opposing team; he was in his Texas, and I was derping around in the Kirov. His team lost, but he got plenty of kills, including me, when he got me while I was trying to set a Myogi on fire.

Interesting... eye candy!

Ummm... I hate to say this, but I had already opened a thread about it in the Off-Topic section... http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/48693-hai-furiblue-mermaids/

I know, I consider them myself to be more "super-destroyers" than small cruisers, yet officially in the Regia Marina they entered service classified as "light cruisers"... However, allow me to point out the fact that among their virtues we can place their guns. It was not cruiser-level, true, but it could tear any destroyer to pieces; and, given that Italian destroyers suffered from the same above mentioned issue as the cruisers, their tight patterns and precision was a welcome break as well. And now that I think of it... maybe I could have mentioned the old Bari and Taranto too... they didn't have closely mounted guns, either! I don't know exactly how the Allies classified the Capitani Romani, though. The only thing I know is that they were not considered to be the easiest ship to meet by British DD skippers... Which means that they probably agreed with the above-mentioned virtue I pointed to...

Well, thanks, but I'm not sure I deserve it. Definitely looking forward for the Zara, though!

Erm... actually not all of them. Took them their sweet time, but the last cruisers to be built before WWII, the Duca degli Abruzzi-class, had their armament of ten 152 mm guns in two triple and two twin turrets, with independent cradles and the guns widely spaced. Also, if we want to consider them cruisers, the Capitani Romani had their 135 mm twin turrets similar in that respect, independent cradles and widely spaced. But most of them had single cradles and guns placed very close together, true. (Although the spacing of the 152 mm guns on the light cruisers was actually bigger than the one of the twin turrets of the Omaha-class... yet the Omaha doesn't seem to suffer very much from dispersion issues...)

Guys, I give up. This is beyond any hope.

It's my fault, I admit it! I recently grinded the Omaha and unlocked the Cleveland, but I am doing abysmally in it! I throw myself on the mercy of the court|