Aotearas

I'd say Richelieu, but then I remembered that I find BB gameplay rather boring anyway, so I simply stopped grinding it and enjoy my cruisers and destroyers instead

Could be a towed minecutting tool:

Some teams just refuse to get carried ...

Personally I am using the rudder mod. 2 to decrease the rudder shift, but I also rarely use my smokes offensively unless I roughly know from which direction torpedoes would be coming. Additional acceleration helps little since the bigger problem is the turning circle anyway. And I definately recommend using concealment mod over the rudder mod. 3 ... for because the turning circle is your real enemy, not the ruddershift and secondly with full stealth build this ship will spot other DDs at roughly the same time as they spot you at which point your superiour dpm should win any 1vs1. I find that too valuable to give up, though I haven't tried to make it work the other way.

Neat. This should become standard, at least for as long as clan battles work with considerably different captain and ship builds (due to the lack of CVs involved among other reasons).

Well, they made that mess themselves. Originally the Alabame was to be ST reward ship only and the Massachussetts to be a public release, so they both could've been the same ship for the difference it made to normal players. But of course rather than telling the very vocal minority that was getting their jimmies rustled, demanding to be able to sail the Alabama that they just have to wait some time until WG releases the Massachusetts that was intended for just that purpose, they caved ... and have been putting their heads through a grinder trying to figure out how to differentiate both ships from another now that both will be available for the public ever since.

Massachussetts looks like it would be the more fun ship to play, at least for me. But in the current meta the Alabama is hands down superiour. Better accuracy for the typical longrange engagements and lolwutsatorp torpedo-protection (though the Massachussetts might also get that).

Some information on the Massachussetts: Interesting development, to try out a brawling BB just after WG has finalized the Asashio which is essentially the perfect hardcounter for aggressive BB play (especially with the increased DCP cooldown, any flooding that sticks will stick for good).

Where is that announcement? Is it on the forum or on the news portal? Because I haven't seen anything of that sort anywhere I looked.

Whatever, you have fun modifying that sentence until it satisfies you. Lord, you sound like my old biology teacher that would go nuts during teaching evolution theory if someone didn't expressly specify random mutations when talking about evolutionary traits and then start accusing everyone of lamarckism.

I couldn't tell you if there is a theoretical possibility because quite frankly I don't understand the physics behind the impacting forces as well as I'd like to. Maybe Exocet could but as he noted it would take a lot of effort to give a satisfying answer if he can even provide one himself. For know I'll just settle that I don't know if it was theoretically possible, though I doubt it would occur at any level that could be considered more than just hypothetical number crunching. Practically however, those rods don't bounce (or at least not the long penetrator rods that I'm thinking about), that's the empiric experience that any tanker would tell you. If you really want to know more about the subject from people with actual onhand experience, I'm sure it wouldn't be terribly hard to find a tank afficionado forum or subreddit and just ask an open-ended question. From what I can tell, those people love to talk about their toys and you'll find those forums/subreddits populated with peple who've either invested more time learning about the subject than I did or straight-up people who were tank crews themselves that have experience with it. The reddit thread I linked in my previous comment might be a nice read for a start and if you're interested you can go looking for more from there.

I'm positively certain there's a plenty sources. Your problem however is that this is a gaming forum and I was giving trivia information. I don't particularily care if you think that just because I'm not citing sources you automatically assume my opinion to be false. I certainly don't care enough to go hunting through scientific journals looking for conclusive evidence that I could cite to satisfy your need even after I altered my original statement to avoid making an absolute judgement. If you come here and expect everyone to argue and present their argues conforming within the rulesets of scientific method, you're at the wrong place. People simplefy complex answer for the ease of understanding. And the simple truth regarding my absolute statement about APFSDS not bouncing is that for all intents and purposes, my statement is correct. It doesn't happen in combat scenarios. You can visit tank enthusiast forums where actual tank crewmen gather and they will tell you the same based on their firsthand experience. In fact, just read this reddit thread. It's the source of one of the images you had linked as evidence that ricochets are possible. The people discussing the topic in there do claim to be actual tankers (though we can hardly verify that of course) and shed insight from firsthand experience. They also conclude that the imprint as seen on the picture was from a training round and as such doesn't qualify as evidence. Whatever theoretical situations you could concoct just to make the math work is irrelevant, because the point of my argument was to impart an easy to understand factoid. I never meant to make a statement that would pass peer review. But if you wish to hold every single statement up to scientific scrutiny, then I'll have to inform you that your citations are woefully inadequate because just quoting sentences from an online source and sharing the link would get your argument dismissed on the grounds of formal errors. If I cited sources like you did, my prof would take a single look at my footnotes (or rather lack thereof) and refuse to read it. Who knows, if you had actually checked the sources of your image search when you linked them you would've realized that your supposed evidence to the contrary was in fact not ... If you want to hold others to such a high standard, then you ought to do the same with yourself. And I think we can leave it at that, since everything that can be said has been said short of organizing an actual expert symposium.

But, but, but ... if you hit the target at a spot wwhose surface contact area is too small for the projectile to change its orientation fast enough to catch onto the surface sufficiently enough, sure THEN it will just ricochet, right? Right!? You just need to find a small enough number SOMEWHERE! In all fairness, chemically propelled KE projectiles don't reach hyper velocity (Mach 8,8). The highest confirmed velocity I could find is the US M829A2 which reaches about Mach 4,9, still well short of hyper velocity. Still doesn't change the fact though that KE projectiles essentially melt their way through armour and thus solid mechanics laws aren't suitable to explain its behaviour.

Once again, you found a scientific paper that treats with ricochets from FRAGMENTS! But if it pleases you, I'll amend my original statement: APFSDS or similar kinetic energy projectiles will not bounce under anything resembling realistic circumstances. If you wish to contest that statement then I'd be interested how you'd go about testfiring an APFSDS projectile and hit anything at a small enough angle to get demonstrable evidence because I'm fairly certain the ballistics involved in firing such projectiles isn't precise enough to even attempt reliably controlled hits within such miniscule parameters as you're proposing.

It was soooo guuuuuuuuud!!!

Ah, if you don't have IFHE yet then no, stick with AP. Your HE won't be penetrating equal tier DD hulls without the IFHE skill. Sorry, I overlooked the sentence where you mentioned that (a bit willful ignorance since I basically assume everyone specs IFHE on their Akizuki for obvious reasons, duh).

That bathtub event was amazeballs and great fun. Also vastly more creative than the space battles. Can't answer the poll though. Obviously the first choice is easy, but the second one ... I wouldn't want to buy those ships, but the only negative choice is just wrong. No man is too old to play with LEGO!

You know that typhoon and hurricane are just two names for the same thing, right?

Not that I mind a bit extra exposure, but you could've bumped our recruitment thread with this ... or even better: bump TTT's, they need it!

Those 100mm shells are a bit on the light side and lose a lot of speed at range, but they're still better than the US 127mm arcs. I suppose you just need a bit more time adjusting. Akizuki is a pretty big ship and not exactly the slimmest. That makes it easy to hit and prone to catching regular pens with AP. The dps however is outstanding so all things considered equal, you should hurt the enemy DDs more than they hurt you in a 1vs1. Problem is a DD brawl is still very much just trading HP and whilst the Akizuki has plenty of that for a DD, it's not going to work in the longrun. Also, the Akizuki's 100mm AP shells have deceptively good penetration up close. A Benson showing broadside up close is like to get overpenned mostly. Even though that still shows as plenty damage to you due to the eight rapidfiring guns, on many DDs shooting HE is the better choice. I'd only switch to AP if they angle decent bit or against the big ones (Gearing, Grozovoy, Khabarovsk or another Akizuki). Maybe that's your problem with seemingly getting bad trades. As for the positioning/aggression, I'd generally say play her like you'd do a US DD. Concealment is equal and you do more work with your guns than with your torpedoes. You do have to keep her horrid manouverability in mind though, Akizuki is nowhere near as nimble to turn than a Benson, so in case of doubt, add another km or two to be on the save side until you figured out where you're comfortable.

Definately. Stressing yourself is an easy way to ruin your concentration.

That game could've gone the other way at the drop of a hat until the last two minutes, oh boy. After I managed to cap A and B I slipped to the other side to eleviate some of the pressure which brought some necessary relief and helped break the usual stalemate at C, then almost got my ticket punched by the enemy Chung Mu and Neptune as I ran into both in the middle of B on my way back to help out at A again. Barely managed to get out alive there. At this point our Missouri gave a very welcome compliment when he complimented me and my clanmates in general by saying SCRUBS are always reliable (and I do take pride in a compliment like that). Secured the Montana, then captured A again and at this point we had de facto won the game with a huge lead in points and enough ships left alive that they couldn't outkill the points gain. That game was intense just the way I like it!

You see comrade, if ship renders slower than minimap, you just make minimap slower and is now just as fast! Easy as cooking Borscht!

The funny thing is, you're wrong there. But sadly I don't quite understand the matter well enough to explain it, suffice it to say that at sufficiently high velocity (or generally involve enough energy in the mix), physics get a LOT more finnekey than "basic math".