LastButterfly

Meh. Super-Alaska-Wannabe. Or, like, a Stalingrad, but, not. We can have both Kronhstadt and Stalingrad but not Alaska~

Pas de Minotaur ? Pfff. Amateur.

Keskegnblon parle dmoi ? Jespère t'es covaincu maintengn...

That's... not how online games work xD No, it's not possible as far as I know. On some games, the support might be kind enough to make the operation for you, but I doubt this is WG's style (worth asking but don't get your hopes up). I'm afraid the one way is to grind money for Gneiseneau again. That's basically the only choice you have. Just play a lower tier, earn money, and when you have enough, buy Gneis. Other than that... not much choices I'm afraid.

Overall I guess that answers most of the pondering I had on the class, thanks. I do have some comments to make though~ So, Tribals were specifically an answer to French Contre-Torpilleurs ? I'm asking cause I never read anything about it. I read far and wide that it was the RN's attempt at having its destroyers challenge slightly larger foreign designs started by the Fubukis. But there's a large gap (time-wise, size-wise, technologically-wise - everything) between a Fubuki and what the French 2400t+ serie. So in the end, what were the Tribal an answer to ? French ships specifically ? Or more generally, the worldwide tendancy to increase DD size and power ? Secondly, I don't think -even if they ARE and answert to French CTs - the comparison is any relevant. French CTs were called cruisers in other nations, sometimes reclassified as such, and other design of similar ideology to answer them or be similar to them mostly ended up being classifyied as cruisers (I'm looking at things like Capitani Romani but also weirder stuff like Tromp class or the Spähkreuzer). The Tribals simply weren't like that. Bigger or not, they were destroyers, closer to how people would look at an Akizuki than a Fantasque - few torpedoes, numerous guns, big, not so fast. Besides that, French guns had a radically different idea behind, being 138mm - a caliber on DD only ever exceeded, if I'm not incorrect, by Yugoslavia equipping 140mm Skoda, and a couple mistakes with 152mm in germany/italy aso. A med/low number of high caliber guns capable of firing far and actually punching through something. Whilst Triblas had numerous, low-caliber guns with medium to little power and range. Also, aout Aigle at TVI, that's debatable, but I'll only just mention that fact and not open said debate as it isn't the place. I'd also like to note that while everyone finds French CTs so gunboats and much power and stuff, their gunnery was actually, in general, quite power, ESPECIALLY with the catastrophic Mogador class. Also, about your "RN philosophy - More, not better"... is that any true ? I mean, as far as I see, it's true only for Tribal, and, no, on for Tribal guns. There's no other DDs and no other aspect in Tribal where the British applyied an ideology of putting a lot of mild stuff instead of a few. UNless you're saying that they litterally produced a wide number of mild to bad destroyers, in which case it totally changes the whole debate. Finally - I have to ask. Considering you seem to have a fair idea of what tier each Tribal configuration roughly belongs too, where would you put the Canadian Tribals, second batch, with the 4*2 102mm and actual Bofors ?

Et des caractères japonais sur la coque. Ca fait très Sicille les caractères japonais, tout le monde le sait.

If there's one thing I have to blame the Royal Navy for, it's that they were way to quick to qualify absolutely any gun as "dual purpose". A gun that won't elevate above 35°, has low range and muzzle velocity, with virtually unadapted fire control and no shell designed for AA purpose "yeah, but it still can fire at very-low flying aircrafts so it counts as dual purpose" A 13mm machine gun "well, theorically you CAN fire on a ship with it so it counts as dual purpose" Obviously I exagerrated the examples, but... I mean, with that logic, battleships main guns are all dual-purpose simply because the shells rise in the air. That's... just no. The 4.7""/45 QF MK XII in the CPXIX mount could only elevate at 40°, had a low range by any standards both vertically and horizontally, had a RoF of roughly 10 in average, barely decent in AS duty and very low in AA duty, trained hardly faster than 10° a second - which is, for AA purpose, barely acceptable, if at all -, possessed no tachymetric AAFD (so I've read) and had shells that were improper for anti-aircraft use. I just can't count this as a dual-purpose gun. If it is, then I wonder what kind of DD main gun was not dual-purpose.

Meh. If the guy wrote correctly and tryied to stay calm and actually debate the matter I'd say he has at least half a point. But oh well.

FRANCE Le bandeau bleu est assez chelou de cet angle là j'avoue.

Well, yeah, seakeeping was an advantage, although I wonder how much stable Tribal was compared to other British DDs - I expect less since it's the basis of her design to abandon old ideology and try to match the powerfuler, less stable foreign designs. But I thought we were talking about a WoWs implementation, in which case seakeeping is hardly worth mentionning since the sea is freakin' flatter than my girlfriend, even during a cyclone ^^".

WG a dit non donc c'est non. Et quoi qu'il en soit on a déjà discuté de Surcouf, lis un peu l'topic : choix possible mais qui brise complètement la continuité de la ligne et sans grand intéret. Ah, et aussi : si tu dis 2*3 127mm et 4*3 TT ca veut dire ou bien qu'elle a des canons triples ou des launceurs quadruples, choisis un sens la vitesse a été expressément sacrifiée pendant la construction de la classe, elle ne mérite pas plus de 34kn.

Bah, c'est Malafon c'est de l'ASW, donc en théorie on s'en fout. Les navires IG ont bien des depth charges nan ?

Les ricains faisaient de jolis porte-avions. Quant aux british, j'adore regarder leurs sous-marins (mais seulement quand ils sont sous l'eau =3)

Well, tht's all relative, right ? I mean, compared to other British DDs sure, but compared to foreign ones, they were just in the norm, more or less, weren't they ? THeir size, granted, is on the upper side, but in the end, they're similar to a Somers class in that regard and it therefore made them smaller than French or Russian leaders - Aigle, Tashkent, Minsk to quote just a few. So while they can qualify as leaders by british standards they're just slightly bigger DDs worldwide-wise. The stronger powerplant is one I don't get at all, maybe you could enlighten me ? I didn't find anything. They still using Parsons turbines powerred by 3 admiralty boilers, which produced a total of 44k shp. That's lower than pretty much any foreign destroyer of the same era, with Japanese and Americans exceeding 50k, Germans, French and Russians exploding that limit by a wide margin, and even much smaller Italian destroyers of the same era had a stronger propulsion. I just don't see how Tribals can be qualified as having a stronger powerplant, maybe I'm missing something in which case I'd be glad if you could teach me that, but all I see is that she had one of the weakest when compared to foreign designs. As for their endurance, I saw it was in the range of Kagero's. Which doesn't sound particularly impressive either. The guns are another matter which leaves me pondering. First off, the four-guns tribals all lost their fourth-gun mid-1940, about 1 year and a half after they were completed for most, which is probably, I guess, either due to the fact that these main guns were not/useless as dual-purpose, or due to the fact that the layout proved unpopular/inefficient with british sailors and admiralty. Either way, since they spend most of the war with three main 120mm guns, I find it rather difficult to consider that the real way to compare a Tribal is to look at its 4*2 layout. To me, they're much more Tribals with the 3*2+1*2 102, because... That's just how the Tribals were most of the time. And if it had been an experiment, sure, I'd have overlooked it, but all of them ? And besides that, once again, worldwidly speaking (that's probably not a word), the 120/45 QF Mk XII in CPXIX mounts were decent guns but compared to other designs of the time, rather unimpressive... They had lightweight shells, compared to 127mm in Germany and the USA, but also to some other 120mm such as the Swedish 120/50 Model 1934. Their RoF, averaged around 10 rpm, hardly exceeded 12, which is around the same as the Swedish and France's previous generation 138mm - and also a bunch of Russians 130mm, but far lower than what the USA or Germany were capable of, not to mention. Their range was low by most standards, only comparable to old american ones - and they failed to have the same penetration as the US. The muzzle velocity and train rates were both "in the norm" in some ways. Admitedly the gun had a good barrel lifetime, though once again, German and Americans did far better. Not to mention that, once again, they weren't dual-purpose. All in all, they were decent guns but always yielded this or that to foreign guns without taking and advantage in return. THeir only advantage on Tribals would have been sheer number - a number which got quickly reduced from 8 barrels to 6, making even that advantage questionnable. THat's why I asked what advantage they had technically wise. I don't doubt a single second they were bigger, better stronger than other RN DDs. But compared to foeign DDs, what exactly could make them any special ? And that's the real deal cause in wows they'll be pitched against ships from anywhere after all.

Ouais Shin l'a cité et moi j'ai dit que je gardais Violet EverJardin pour le turfu quand j'aurais expand ma liste de trucs à voir ou lors d'une saison creuse. Même si pour mon runner de la saison je reste sur A Place Further than the Universe pasque j'suis dissident.

So, er, what exactly... in a technical way, were they famous for ?

Pas l'évolution, simplement que la dernière fois qu'on t'as mis face à tes connaissances, c'était ya 22 ans. On parie combien que si tu passes un exams de code tu l'as pas ? Souvient toi, moins de 5 erreurs...

Les stages de récup de points sont pour ceux qui ont perdu des points. Moi je te parle de rappels réguliers pour tout le monde. Du style Hervé Verdier, de Pouilleux-sur-Gazon en Seine et Marne, qui a plus aucune idée de comment on prend un rond-point et du coup se met toujours bien au centre ; qui a oublié que la voiture possédait des feux qui clignotent ; qui aime rouler à gauche en continue sur l'autoroute ; pour qui les angles morts sont une légende urbaine ; des comportements que trois-quart des conducteurs ont, qui sont de plus en plus fréquents avec l'age, et qui ne sont que très rarement sanctionné, même si pourtant ils nuisent à la fluidité du trafic et à la sûreté de la conduite. T'as ton permis depuis 5 ans, bah tu le repasses. Et si pendant l'exam t'es pas aussi parfait qu'un examinateur le veut t'auras qu'à le repasser encore et encore jusqu'à ce que ce soit bon !

Mesdames et messieurs, La Naiveté.

Un permis limité dans le temps. Avec un rappel tous les 3~7 ans si tu veux le garder. On aurait 60 000 000 de personnes dans les rues mais question efficacité c'est imparrable.

Je vois absolument pas le rapport avec ce que j'ai dit.

L'automoviliste français n'est pas le plus respectueux ni des règles ni des autres usagers non plus... On est pas grecques mais sur nos routes, ça vole pas bien haut non plus... (d'où : prenez l'avion)

Bah prend l'avion.

85 et des poussières. Flemme de calculer plus loin.

Which primary design are you talking about ? The primary like, before-ariake design, or the primary like, the one where they somehow still squeezed three triple torpedo tubes on her ?