Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About ReinhardVonUhlig

  1. Honestly the more i play Konigsberg (and against it) the more i realize this ships is actually quite bad. HE is bad and AP is random at best. Agility is lacking SORELY. No armor and crippling module damage is the name of the game. Now someone will probably start pulling my stats and whatnot.... i just dont care... this is not the case of the grass is greener on the other side as they say. I fought other Konigsbergs in my own Konigsberg and except the Furutaka ive never seen a ship suffer such crippling damage from my own Konigs shots. I didnt need even to try, unlike other cruisers........ i just sprayed his hull with AP at every angle, everything went through and did crippling damage, or massive HP damage. Its like this ship has stealth damage multipliers with glass modules made bigger than the ship itself... i cannot explain it otherwise...... When you get fired at by a Battleship you can expect loosing half the HP with the first 2 shots AT ANY ANGLE , thats if you dont blow up like a matchstick box soaked in nitroglycerin....... Sniping is not easy...hell its hard, the shots are nowhere near as fast as people like to talk and the enemy players (unless lobotomized) will have it quite easy at dodging....and if they get lucky, even with one stray shot, there goes your engine, or steering........or both.
  2. ReinhardVonUhlig

    Karlsruhe: is it just shockingley bad?

    Honestly they could drop kongisberg down to tier 4 if they cut its HP and rof........Karlcrap is just torture, but after playing Furutaka i got used to it.......
  3. My 2 cents i am sorry if i repeat something, as i didnt follow you conversation. My 4-5 most played tanks in Wot years ago had 59 to 62 % winrate, and no i didnt drive Soviets or other op stuff..... However if a sub average player fails in every except one or two tanks having unusually high win rate then its a sign something is wrong. I find the combination of particular vehicle flaws much more annoying than win rates as such (exm. bad agility and horrible module damage).
  4. Weak modules is an understatement, but hey, its a pro "hammer and sickle" game, we all know that........ ..its seems the game code dislikes my 54 percent winrate and decided today i will loose, or get blown up by the first hit my Konigsberg gets no matter what ...with full hp. And the teams, oh the horror, such one sided massacres.....
  5. ReinhardVonUhlig

    The Germans ...........

    Ok now i am puzzled wtf is going on .....after the last mini update i am looking at konigsbergs shells going almost slow motion...i am literally observing friendly shells hitting the same target almost twice the speed of mine....they literally zoom ahead of my shells hoovering in the air, while they have rocket propulsion.......
  6. Konigsberg gameplay revolves around not being hit (i assume Nurnberg is the same)..... hit anywhere center mass = engine knocked out - sitting duck Its kinda crazy ...gives me the bad WoT deja vu when it comes to German fantasy tank weakspot, the notorious transmission fire. Either increase the agility of this ship, or decrease the rate of this engine damage nonsense. The ship is a real glass cannon, its AP murders cruisers, and rof + turret rotation speed kills destroyers...but its marginally good in a real fight.....and that comes out in a really ugly way when you have a bad team and end up exposed to enemy fire. There is also the issue of small maps and getting shot right from the spawn start.......
  7. ReinhardVonUhlig

    The Germans ...........

    First 3 Battles with Konigsberg ever.......... scored almost 3200 xp despite being somewhat unlucky After Tier 5 furutaka and tier 4 Karlgarbage this ship is pure gold. Probably the second ship (after Aoba) i will keep.
  8. ReinhardVonUhlig

    The Karlsruhe is utter garbage because......

    I find it still better than Furutaka....... I am serious.
  9. ReinhardVonUhlig

    The Germans ...........

    Hm, but isnt the last claim defeating the purpose of AP ? I find AP incredibly limited as you can use it to full effect only vs players stupid enough to expose their full broadside enough time to aim, fire and hit them with enough AP to matter. HE also causes way too many fires, so the purpose of skillful aiming is by a large margin neutered. Back to topic I find tier 4 German cruiser much less of a pain than tier 5 IJN Furutaka.....at least the guns have good rotation speed and ROF to combat destroyers well enough.
  10. ReinhardVonUhlig

    BBs are useless

    Yep because the fact shells randomly fall how they like has a lot to do with skill....i can go from massive damage in one battle to very little in the next, and i doubt i suddenly loose all my skill in mere minutes. Ships like tier 4 myogi with only 6 guns suffer even more because they cant flood the enemy ship with a shell/shot pattern on impact.....
  11. ReinhardVonUhlig

    Why bring kriegmarine?

    Except they were beaten miserably in ship to ship action even when they thought they had the advantage.....or at least driven back, not convoy attacks but full flotilla on flotilla action. By the same logic KM did the best they could..... but somehow i believe you would change the song then.... "Lack of ships" ....well if they actually knew how to effectively defend a port from biplanes they would have those ships.... By your own admission they lacked training, they lacked in night fighting capability, high command was reluctant and still loosing ships, and also they had no aircraft carriers or at least a good cooperation with teh airforce (which was poorly trained for anti shipping actions). I am not questioning their bravery i am saying they were not effective, and the high command lacked guts to take risks in critical times when they still had a chance. Time was not on their side, it was clear with the US entering the war ....still they kept on going the same old route...... "The key is, when they were preparing to fighting to the bitter end, they still had a sizable fleet." Honestly this sounds like something out of a nationalistic myth....so if Hitler was assassinated in 1944, the German army could claim they were undefeated despite allies destroying their armies in Normandy and Russia ? Its the same "logic"....
  12. ReinhardVonUhlig

    Why bring kriegmarine?

    The fact the Italian navy was obviously not up to the job of real combat vs th RN in the Mediteran despite having at least numbers parity in home waters, and fighting in range of their airforce, no matter how someone spins it. Already Tarranto showed they were a paper Tiger.
  13. ReinhardVonUhlig

    Why bring kriegmarine?

    HistroyNerd i think my eyes just bled from this text i was blushing while reading it, let alone if i had written it. This is the most twisted , apologetic view ever..... is this a copy paste of some Italian "Historian"......ive heard some even claimed victory of their navy in ww2 cuz "mission accomplished". So lets begin The Regia Marina survived as an effective force, unlike the other Axis navies. That the Kingdom of Italy sought an armistice instead of fighting to the bitter end helped, but the fact remains that after thirthy-nine months of war Italy still possessed a significant fleet capable of intervention, and that fleet was still running convoys to the islands and along the coasts. The key is sought an armistice instead of fighting to the bitter end Italy still possessed a significant fleet capable of intervention, and that fleet was still running convoys to the islands and along the coasts. I am sure a total of 250 000 axis pows stuck in Afrika think highly of this fact.......or the fact Malta was never truly neutralised, or captured. When the Ligurian-based battle squadron received the unexpected news of an armistice on 8 September, boilers had been fired and the fleet was prepared to expend itself in a do-or-die strike against the Salerno landings. Saved by the bell in other words.....yes its honorable to go down fighting but thats the thing.... the Italian navy did too much dying last 3 years, and not enough killing. The Regia Marina not only survived, but largely accomplished its missions. Accomplished the missions while a huge chunk of friendly troops are stuck and surrendered in Africa starved by Operation Retribution..... and then later Allies landing at Sicily and winning the war....... ok..... Truth is Italians suffered such losses till this phase of the war they just acted as fleet in being more than anything else.... Its like giving an engineer a high school algebra test and then boasting how he solved it..... meantime he cant handle the real thing he was trained to do. Up until May 1943 it closed the direct passage through the Mediterranean to all but eight freighters in three massively protected convoys [...]. [...] With regards to Italy's mercantile war, the chart [omissis] demonstrates that over the course of its war, 98 percent of the men and 90 percent of the material that set forth from Italian ports to Lybia, Tunisia or the Balkans arrived safely. Nice statistics than can someone explain to me how exactly troops in Tunis were left with no supplies at the end and surrendered en masse. Truth is Italian navy was able to hold a status quo, especially with the German air and sea aid, while suffering disproportionate losses in clashes with the Royal Navy, or avoiding prolonged battles. Frogmen, Submarines and Aircraft actions resulted in most of the RN losses, but that helps little to recover the face of Italian navy surface units. The nature of its operations and the priorities set by the navy's political leadership required the Regia Marina to operate in a defensive posture defending these convoys in an environment where air support, doctrine, technology and intelligence favored the Allies. Italy's navy certainly had its failures and suffered its defeats. But these should not obscure its victories. Overall, it performed the jobs it was tasked to do. It was a successful service, considering its lack of oil or of an integral air component and the caliber of the opposition it faced. Ahaaa here we go again...... "The nature of its operations and the priorities set by the navy's political leadership" Nice excuse....... So if i command my navy to wage a defensive and quite reluctant war at sea, while my enemies are growing stronger in time, and still getting beaten into a bloody pulp when i do fight, does it make my navy truly well used and efficient......no. PS I know someone will say "omg here is an Italian basher" i am not........Their units like the naval Frogmen, Parachutists from Folgore, the Bersaglieri etc. were all top notch units, even the tank units with their outdated M series of tanks performed admirably under Africa corps, and their bravery was unquestioned.....but those things i think were bad i have no qualms calling it directly out.
  14. ReinhardVonUhlig

    Why bring kriegmarine?

  15. ReinhardVonUhlig

    Why bring kriegmarine?

    Gatt, on 17 November 2015 - 11:47 AM, said: Awwww, I give up. He shoots random numbers. Actually RM, given the lack of radar, lack of fuel, lack of night fighting ability, lack of air cover, not cooperating german ally .... won the Med convoys war. The percentages shown by historynerd are right, are history. Oh well, apologies for being OT too. Lol sarcasm meltdown... Yep they won alright..... by switching sides SO by your own admission they had a ton of issues aka THEY sucked. The Brits kicked them so hard and some battles were onesided..... period...whats the problem...... ...i just dont get it....... are you Italian maybe. And now you even blame the Germans. Yeah, because they were the ones wanting to wage war in the Mediteranean sea....they were FORCED to come and aid the Italians.... lets stop and think about that simple fact....... Yes there were always exceptional men in every nation and every military, but they wont change the odds or the overall performance if the general organisation, training, command, logistics, and equipment were lacking..... and the Italian disaster started almost from day one....i mean Greece ffs. Dropsiq, on 17 November 2015 - 12:08 PM, said: well. I'm done. So RN blunders are not blunders because they were able to defeat a single nation isolated from its ally Japan, while having USA and SU on their side .....you know that is a deeply flawed logic,. Historynerd, on 17 November 2015 - 11:38 AM, said: What sources do you have about the month-by-month supply situation? We (thanks to Giorgerini and O'Hara) have them, and oh, look, the only month in which the percentage slipped below 50% or arrived supplied was November 1941 (because of the Force K). And Rommel always complained, but he never listened. He was told that, with all of its best efforts, the Regia Marina could not guarantee supplies if he invaded Egypt. He did nonetheless, laughing it off, but when trouble started to come around did he admit he overlooked this details? No, he blamed Italians who couldn't do anything and spies. He is not a reliable source for this. Please stop it. You just don't know what you're talking about. Read a bit; O'Hara provides the data you want, and it gives the opposite picture. And if you want to keep talking about this, make another thread, so let's not clutter this one with off topic. Rommel was for sure not without his sins, as he always ignored the logistic issues + lets remember he fought the italians in ww1+ the general Italian performance before Rommel arrived. But lets turn the other side of the coin shall we ...the Italian army had no apparent issues trying to do the same before him....so i would take the Italian claims with a grain of salt, due to the Italian German antipathy. The main issue was Malta and the inept Italian navy, army and air force, to finish what they started. And then we have Tarranto and Battle of Cape Matapan......... They were unable to guard their harbours let alone face the RN in a fleet action. And these were the guys which wanted a new Roman Empire....