Progress in this game doesn't make any sense.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

Torpedoes explode underwater just like bombs and HE shells can do if they are near misses, they all throw up water plumes.

 

It may be true that small HE shells lack the explosives and power to be of much harm. But it's not true that the airdropped bombs has significantly less explosives then the torpedo, especially if we compare with the lighter airlaunched torpedoes.

 

Airlaunched Torpedoes:

British 18 inch Mark XI Torpedo (1934): 211 kg TNT ( likely used against Bismarck )

British 18 inch Mark XV Torpedo (1942): 247 kg Torpex

USNavy Mark 13 Mod1: 181 kg

USNavy Mark 13 Mod2: 270 kg

IJN Type 91: 204 kg

 

Divebomber Bombs:

IJN D3A: 1x250 kg

IJN D4Y: 1x500 kg or 2x250 kg

USN SBD Dauntess: 1x1000lb (450kg)

USN SB2C Helldiver: 1x1000lb (450kg)

 

So the biggest divebomber bombs ( what they would use against armored capital ships ), are around 500kg, of which is 250kg explosives, fully comparable to the explosive charges of airdropped torpedoes that evidently could cripple rudders on Battleship sized ships.

 

I think he meant ship launched torpedos... A Type 93 long lance had 490 kg of explosives, a Mark 15 had 374 kg while an american 1000 lb GP bomb has 202 kg, a 500 lb only 87 kg

[Hauptbahnhof]

 

I think he meant ship launched torpedos... A Type 93 long lance had 490 kg of explosives, a Mark 15 had 374 kg while an american 1000 lb GP bomb has 202 kg, a 500 lb only 87 kg

 

The torpedo that wrecked Bismarcks rudder was airlaunched and had no more explosive then the bombs dropped by dive bombers, that was my point.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

The torpedo that wrecked Bismarcks rudder was airlaunched and had no more explosive then the bombs dropped by dive bombers, that was my point.

 

Well yeah but the Bismarck had a pretty bad design since one torpedo could jam the rudder making it uncontrollable so She might not be the best example.....

anyway I think ArdRaeiss said that torps could damage the steering, maybe what they could do is make the rudder part of the steering system so when a torpedo hits the rudder

it would knock out the entire steering of course if it's not already implemented.....

Well they could also play with the idea to make the ship less maneuverable when a torpedo hits the rudder 

Also to hit the rudder with a bomb.... the luck you'd need to do that you'd be better off going to Las Vegas, same with high caliber shells

[Hauptbahnhof]

 

Also to hit the rudder with a bomb.... the luck you'd need to do that you'd be better off going to Las Vegas, same with high caliber shells

 

Really?

 

In the example earlier with 36 Cleaveland maingun barrels spamming out shells do you need Las Vegas luck for one of them to hit a Yamato sized rudder which is 10x10 meters big lined up perfectly just 5 meters below the waterline?

 

Battleship rudders are huge things as big as the Cleaveland maingun turrets, and indirect explosions in the water near them could as we saw also be problematic.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

Really?

 

In the example earlier with 36 Cleaveland maingun barrels spamming out shells do you need Las Vegas luck for one of them to hit a Yamato sized rudder which is 10x10 meters big lined up perfectly just 5 meters below the waterline?

 

Battleship rudders are huge things as big as the Cleaveland maingun turrets, and indirect explosions in the water near them could as we saw also be problematic.

Do you see where the rudder is? Good luck hitting that. And I kinda doubt that a 152 mm shell has enough explosive material on board to do any kinds of damage against something that's 5 m under the water. And even if It could damage the rudder the bloody thing is so huge you cannot possible cause any significant problem to it by a measly 152 mm shell. And actually on a side note 3 Clevelands might not be able to sink a Yamato Class battleship, but sure as hell they can wreck everything that's not under the water... The superstructure is unarmored and the AA mounts and secondaries at most have 57 mm of armor. After 10 minutes all that would be left from the bloody thing are a floating hunk of metal with 3 turrets strapped on top of it.... Half the crew would be dead or injured, most of the ship would be in flames and probably everything that's not the citadel would be flooded as well.... Just because you cannot sink the bloody thing does not mean that it will be anything more than floating scrapyard 

[Takeda92]

I can understand that BBs could get citadel hits from cruisers but what about the other way around? BBs have much slower reload, turret turn speed and maneuverability and they suffer from RNG when firing at long distances. Their hits does not generate more DPM than what cruisers could. Same can be said with a cruiser who isn't specialized in firepower and an US destroyer. High AP RoF guns seems to do much damage than slow big alpha guns, where your big alpha is either lost by RNG or you did not hit the citadel. It's one of the reasons why high tier IJN ships are so unpopular. Big guns that can't be used effectively (bad turret turn rate) and big citadels. Even destroyers can give you a hard time.

[Bl4ckh0g]

I can understand that BBs could get citadel hits from cruisers but what about the other way around? BBs have much slower reload, turret turn speed and maneuverability and they suffer from RNG when firing at long distances. Their hits does not generate more DPM than what cruisers could. Same can be said with a cruiser who isn't specialized in firepower and an US destroyer. High AP RoF guns seems to do much damage than slow big alpha guns, where your big alpha is either lost by RNG or you did not hit the citadel. It's one of the reasons why high tier IJN ships are so unpopular. Big guns that can't be used effectively (bad turret turn rate) and big citadels. Even destroyers can give you a hard time.

 

That's because152 mm guns are capable of penetrating most of the ships at ranges below 10-11 km and because damages are not really well toned between guns, for example Pepsi's 203 mm guns do 5k damage while Cleve's do 3,4k. the answer lies in the Damage of the guns. The difference between high caliber and lower caliber guns should be much bigger than it is now.

 

 

Maybe. Not so sure. Might be a bad idea.

[kesmen]

I wanted to make a similar post like this but instead of the destroyer i wanted to mention battleships.
I really enjoyed the Kongo it was an excellent ship with great guns and the Fuso was a suburb ship with even batter guns ( i would say my favourite battleship yet) since BB is all about gun but than comes the Nagato it bigger for sure but its guns are just [edited]useles. I am a huge target and eats critical and heavy damage like crazy while my gun just miss every single shot.

[MatJan]

I wanted to make a similar post like this but instead of the destroyer i wanted to mention battleships.
I really enjoyed the Kongo it was an excellent ship with great guns and the Fuso was a suburb ship with even batter guns ( i would say my favourite battleship yet) since BB is all about gun but than comes the Nagato it bigger for sure but its guns are just [edited]useles. I am a huge target and eats critical and heavy damage like crazy while my gun just miss every single shot.

 

Amagi is not realy that much better, although it has 2 more guns and is faster, it has less armour and it's 410mm guns are so RNG that sometimes you will get straight citadel shots but if not you will just get less than 1k dmg hits, best bet is to hit extreme bow or stern of the ship and net 5k or 6k hits, which is strange and shouldn't be happening with battleships shooting vs cruisers. On the other hand CA in teams of 2 and 3 will eat any high tier BB with AP and those who us HE now are just silly unless it's a DD or CV.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

I wanted to make a similar post like this but instead of the destroyer i wanted to mention battleships.
I really enjoyed the Kongo it was an excellent ship with great guns and the Fuso was a suburb ship with even batter guns ( i would say my favourite battleship yet) since BB is all about gun but than comes the Nagato it bigger for sure but its guns are just [edited]useles. I am a huge target and eats critical and heavy damage like crazy while my gun just miss every single shot.

 

Amagi is not realy that much better, although it has 2 more guns and is faster, it has less armour and it's 410mm guns are so RNG that sometimes you will get straight citadel shots but if not you will just get less than 1k dmg hits, best bet is to hit extreme bow or stern of the ship and net 5k or 6k hits, which is strange and shouldn't be happening with battleships shooting vs cruisers. On the other hand CA in teams of 2 and 3 will eat any high tier BB with AP and those who us HE now are just silly unless it's a DD or CV.

I looked around a little bit about gun penetrations and while I did not found the IJN 356 mm and 410 mm guns penetration I found the USN 14" and 16" gun's.

 The USN 14"/45 could penetrate 226 mm at 14 630 meters and 302 mm at 10 920 meters, bear in mind that the IJN 356 mm gun had a little bit more penetration so maybe add 500-1000 meters to those ranges.  

But basically If you are fighting against a Fuso stay from more than 15 km from him  and you'll have a nice chance against her, The 41 cm guns on the Amagi and Nagato could penetrate her citadel while her 36 cm guns cannot yours...hopefully 

[Hauptbahnhof]

And actually on a side note 3 Clevelands might not be able to sink a Yamato Class battleship, but sure as hell they can wreck everything that's not under the water... The superstructure is unarmored and the AA mounts and secondaries at most have 57 mm of armor. After 10 minutes all that would be left from the bloody thing are a floating hunk of metal with 3 turrets strapped on top of it.... Half the crew would be dead or injured, most of the ship would be in flames and probably everything that's not the citadel would be flooded as well.... Just because you cannot sink the bloody thing does not mean that it will be anything more than floating scrapyard 

 

I agree with you that small guns should be able to incapacitate and wear down a Battleship.

 

What I don't agree with is how it is currently done, which is AP hits on the citadel area and knocking out the maingun turrets...

 

As you correctly point out what should happen is strapping away all AA and secondary guns + causing fires and havoc all over by using mostly HE rounds and focusing on superstructure and areas outside the citadel, right?

 

 

To do the kind of massive reliable damage that is currently possible should IMO require torpedo hits or Heavy Cruiser+ ( 8" up ) guns at very close range.

[Diedel]

We will see how they "fix" this in the end, but with the pre-order packages already out i do not have much hope or big changes. I am actualyl realyl amazed how many aspects are in WoWS that constantly cause rage on the forum and they even made them far worse (seemingly random damage, insane citadel damage, cloaking smoke, etc.)

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

I agree with you that small guns should be able to incapacitate and wear down a Battleship.

 

What I don't agree with is how it is currently done, which is AP hits on the citadel area and knocking out the maingun turrets...

 

As you correctly point out what should happen is strapping away all AA and secondary guns + causing fires and havoc all over by using mostly HE rounds and focusing on superstructure and areas outside the citadel, right?

 

 

To do the kind of massive reliable damage that is currently possible should IMO require torpedo hits or Heavy Cruiser+ ( 8" up ) guns at very close range.

 

Well they said that the barbettes are bugged, they do not have any armor value and because they are part of the turret when they are damaged the whole turret blown up.

Besides that, 152 and 155 mm guns do around 3-5k damage per salvo at ranges around 5-10 km against Kongo  and such relatively poorly armored Battleships. I do not think that's wrong, they should do these kind of damages, below 3-4 km you can penetrate the side of a Kongo and do nice 8-10k rolls with a full broadside of a Cleveland but at the same time the Kongo batters the Cleveland as well with the secondaries. 

I played a couple of battles in the Galaxy and the Zaya ( Des Moines and Senjo) when they had this space event and I noticed that against a Yamato you do rather poor damage with AP shells, only around 3k per salvo but much better 5-6 k damage with HE so there's that.

And consider that the damage these low caliber guns do are not citadel penetrations, the citadel pens are the big ones that takes half your health off. This damage comes from the superstructure and other not-so-well armored parts of a ship. HP is the combat potential of the ship. It contains the buoyancy, the crew and the overall fighting capability of a ship. When you hit a ship with a shell even if you do not penetrate the main armor belt you will cause problems and these "problems" are represented as damage in the game. So when you batter a Yamato for full 3 minutes with 8 inch gunfire from 14 km you actually never really penetrate the citadel, you just destroy everything else making the ship unable to fight anymore, this is represented as the sinking of the ship. Otherwise there would be a wreck floating in place for the rest of the battle there.

[Hauptbahnhof]

Besides that, 152 and 155 mm guns do around 3-5k damage per salvo at ranges around 5-10 km against Kongo  and such relatively poorly armored Battleships. I do not think that's wrong, they should do these kind of damages, below 3-4 km you can penetrate the side of a Kongo and do nice 8-10k rolls with a full broadside of a Cleveland but at the same time the Kongo batters the Cleveland as well with the secondaries. I played a couple of battles in the Galaxy and the Zaya ( Des Moines and Senjo) when they had this space event and I noticed that against a Yamato you do rather poor damage with AP shells, only around 3k per salvo but much better 5-6 k damage with HE so there's that.

 

My experience has been the incoming AP always do more damage regardless of range and also outside the range which your Battleship armor can be penetrated. Although I haven't reached the Yamato yet...

 

Even if the 6" can just barley penetrate some World War 1 Battlecruisers like the Kongo at point blank range the explosive charge inside was so ridiculously small ( less then 1kg of explosives ) that I don't see how it could cause much damage. It would also also have lost so much power/energy that the next internal bulkhead would stop it meaning it can't reach critical internals like ammo storage or engine/boiler room.

 

Consider that a 6" AP shell weights in at 59kg which is less then 10% the kinetic energy and bursting charge then a 650kg + 14" Battleship shell.

 

That does not sound like something that should be able to take away 20% of a Battleship hitpoints ( 10k damage ) IMHO.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

My experience has been the incoming AP always do more damage regardless of range and also outside the range which your Battleship armor can be penetrated. Although I haven't reached the Yamato yet...

 

Even if the 6" can just barley penetrate some World War 1 Battlecruisers like the Kongo at point blank range the explosive charge inside was so ridiculously small ( less then 1kg of explosives ) that I don't see how it could cause much damage. It would also also have lost so much power/energy that the next internal bulkhead would stop it meaning it can't reach critical internals like ammo storage or engine/boiler room.

 

Consider that a 6" AP shell weights in at 59kg which is less then 10% the kinetic energy and bursting charge then a 650kg + 14" Battleship shell.

 

That does not sound like something that should be able to take away 20% of a Battleship hitpoints ( 10k damage ) IMHO.

 

Well I actually never saw a 152 mm shell penetrate the citadel of a BB , though I once managed to pen a Fuso's citadel with the Pensacola.

As I said the damage that the 152 mm shells do are not citadel penetrations, they are the  damage to the other parts of the ship, crew, superstructure etc.

The 203 mm shell can penetrate the Battleship's citadel, the 8"/55 guns on the Pensacola can penetrate 203 mm at 11 340 meters and 254 mm from 8 230 meters.

The only battleships that's currently in game and have thicker belt armor than 254 mm are Kawachi(305) , Fuso(305), Nagato(289) and The Yamato(420). These ship are relatively protected against 203 mm guns. However this only means that these ships cannot be citadel penetrated by 203 mm guns from a distance. They can still be damaged. As I said HP does not mean the HP of the citadel. It means the overall fighting capability of the ship.

[Hauptbahnhof]

Well I actually never saw a 152 mm shell penetrate the citadel of a BB

 

...

 

They can still be damaged. As I said HP does not mean the HP of the citadel. It means the overall fighting capability of the ship.

 

And as I said do you think it feels historical that armor piercing 6" peashooter guns from a Cleveland can take off 20% of the Battleships hitpoints without actually piercing any armor?

 

Especially given their rapid firing speed, which means two cruisers with the smallest guns can sink a full hitpoints battleship from close distance before it has time to turn it's guns 180 degrees around and fire back.

 

For me this does not feel historical.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

And as I said do you think it feels historical that armor piercing 6" peashooter guns from a Cleveland can take off 20% of the Battleships hitpoints without actually piercing any armor?

 

Especially given their rapid firing speed, which means two cruisers with the smallest guns can sink a full hitpoints battleship from close distance before it has time to turn it's guns 180 degrees around and fire back.

 

For me this does not feel historical.

 

Okay we are just doing circles here. But once again I'll explain.

First. The hit-point system in game represents the fighting capability of a ship. That means that when you receive for example a 5246 damage hit that means that your ship suffered some damage: 67 people died, 103 injured, the entire canteen got destroyed, splinters damaged the internal communications lines between some rooms etc, etc.

When you receive a citadel hit that means that one shell penetrated your forward magazine ignited the ammunition, killed 300 people  and nearly tore the aft of the ship apart.

In order to take a ship of action you do not need to sink it. you just need to cause enough damage to the ship so it cannot function anymore as a  fighting unit. This can be achieved via destroying the FCS, killing most of the crew and such. 

So do you see the deep darker blue parts? That is the citadel. Everything else can be damaged and destroyed with 152 mm gunfire. When 3 Clevelands gang up on a Yamato and kill it, that means that they destroyed everything that's not the citadel and not underwater. The Yamato would still have it's main Batteries but it would not have any FCS, most of her crew would be dead or injured, The funnels would be destroyed etc. Even if they batter the Citadel long enough the armor would eventually give up.

And I seriously will not write a single sentence more about this matter.

[Hauptbahnhof]

In order to take a ship of action you do not need to sink it. you just need to cause enough damage to the ship so it cannot function anymore as a  fighting unit. This can be achieved via destroying the FCS, killing most of the crew and such. 

So do you see the deep darker blue parts? That is the citadel. Everything else can be damaged and destroyed with 152 mm gunfire. When 3 Clevelands gang up on a Yamato and kill it, that means that they destroyed everything that's not the citadel and not underwater. The Yamato would still have it's main Batteries but it would not have any FCS, most of her crew would be dead or injured, The funnels would be destroyed etc. Even if they batter the Citadel long enough the armor would eventually give up.

And I seriously will not write a single sentence more about this matter.

 

I know perfectly well how Battleships are armored. It is called all or nothing approach.

 

But you still refuse to write a single word about if the Cleveland Cruisers should be using AP or HE ammo when they engage Battleships and have no chance to penetrate the main armor??? Despite me asking directly about it.

 

HE rounds would have loads of more explosives and do significantly more damage to the UNARMORED parts of the Battleship.

 

By using AP rounds they would not cause much damage to unarmored parts, and they would cause zero damage to the armored parts, that is all I am trying to teach you.

 

This is NOT WORKING in World of warships right now in the experience of Battleships and Cruisers I have. You are always better of using AP against Battleships and will consistently cause higher damage even if you can't penetrate the armor, which is wrong. I have seen a full salvo of 6" AP shells hit from very close range right in main belt armor and cause 5-10k damage ( 10-20% of the hitpoints ) on Battleships, while in reality such a salvo would cause little to no damage.

 

What I am trying to say and you refuse to understand is that smaller ships should have to use HE against too well armored Battleships and aim outside the citadel to cause fire and wear them down. Before finishing them off with torpedoes. That is how it works in reality.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

I know perfectly well how Battleships are armored. It is called all or nothing approach.

 

But you still refuse to write a single word about if the Cleveland Cruisers should be using AP or HE ammo when they engage Battleships and have no chance to penetrate the main armor??? Despite me asking directly about it.

 

HE rounds would have loads of more explosives and do significantly more damage to the UNARMORED parts of the Battleship.

 

By using AP rounds they would not cause much damage to unarmored parts, and they would cause zero damage to the armored parts, that is all I am trying to teach you.

 

This is NOT WORKING in World of warships right now in the experience of Battleships and Cruisers I have. You are always better of using AP against Battleships and will consistently cause higher damage even if you can't penetrate the armor, which is wrong. I have seen a full salvo of 6" AP shells hit from very close range right in main belt armor and cause 5-10k damage ( 10-20% of the hitpoints ) on Battleships, while in reality such a salvo would cause little to no damage.

 

What I am trying to say and you refuse to understand is that smaller ships should have to use HE against too well armored Battleships and aim outside the citadel to cause fire and wear them down. Before finishing them off with torpedoes. That is how it works in reality.

 

Waitaminute Why wouldn't AP shells do damage against armored parts of the ship? And what unarmored parts are you exactly referring? 

All-or-nothing concept was about making the ships critical part armored against Capital ship guns while the rest was only equipped with light armor against HE.

The 5-10k salvos are not penetrating the citadel they are doing damage by damaging other "unarmored" parts of the ship.

If 152 mm guns would penetrate the citadel they'd do 3,5k damage per shot not per salvo.

 

Edit: I mean I understand what are you trying to say, but why would you Shoot HE against 25-50 mm thick armor? HE is nice for carriers to set their decks on fire and DDs because they have at most 25 mm.

IIRC the USN did not used HE against ships they exclusively used AP. HE and HC shells were against ground targets. 

 

[Hauptbahnhof]

IIRC the USN did not used HE against ships they exclusively used AP. HE and HC shells were against ground targets. 

 

 

Do you have a source for that claim?

 

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that both USN and IJN smaller ships loaded HE shells to wreak the other sides Battleship/Cruisers superstructures during the night action around Guadalcanal ( Which is the closest thing in reality we will come to the close range combats in WoWs ).

 

 

 

This is what Wikipedia has to say about all or nothing armoring, and I can't find much notion about light armor against high explosives there:

 

"The "all or nothing" concept avoided light or moderate thicknesses of armor: armor was used in the greatest practicable thickness or not at all, thereby providing "either total or negligible protection""

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

Do you have a source for that claim?

 

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that both USN and IJN smaller ships loaded HE shells to wreak the other sides Battleship/Cruisers superstructures during the night action around Guadalcanal ( Which is the closest thing in reality we will come to the close range combats in WoWs ).

 

 

 

This is what Wikipedia has to say about all or nothing armoring, and I can't find much notion about light armor against high explosives there:

 

"The "all or nothing" concept avoided light or moderate thicknesses of armor: armor was used in the greatest practicable thickness or not at all, thereby providing "either total or negligible protection""

 

YESSS YESSSSS I FOUND IT

khrm Yes I found Evidence that I, in fact did not said any BS or at least not much 

 http://yarchive.net/mil/naval_shell_types.html 

Well it's not clearly states that they did not used HE against battleships but it contains enough information that I can confirm my claim.

I think..... I hope.....

 

Other than that

SORRY FOR HIJACKING THIS THREAD FOR THIS DISCUSSION! 

(It's censored so it's okay) hue hue hue hue

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-070.htm there's some info about all-or-nothing armor

in the previous link they stated that there's no such thing as HE shell, there's only HC high capacity shells which are essentially AP shells with more explosive inside them.

 

But seriously I'm stopping this discussion about the armor and all let's get back to the tier thingy or something

[Hauptbahnhof]

 

khrm Yes I found Evidence that I, in fact did not said any BS or at least not much 

 http://yarchive.net/mil/naval_shell_types.html 

Well it's not clearly states that they did not used HE against battleships but it contains enough information that I can confirm my claim.

I think..... I hope.....

 

 

I interpret it the other way around, that for smaller naval guns the standard ammo would be HE = HC 

 

"By "HE", I assume you mean

non-armor-piercing; that type is often called "HC" (High Capacity), whichmeans it has an 15% or so burst charge compared to an APCBC 2.5-3.5%"

 

"Contrawise, smaller guns almost never had an AP, APC, or APCBC round

aboard. They carried an "HC" shell, a fragmentation shell for AA work, andif they were late war, possibly "VT" (proximity). If the guns were reallysmall, they might have starshell aboard."

[Bl4ckh0g]

so anyway this thread was about some sort of problem with advancing with tiers amirite? 

 

About that

It is rather interesting as why the USN destroyers have decreasing turn radius from tier 6 onward with reduced detectability, I mean 9 km on the Gearing? Seriously?

The Japanese CAs does not seem to improve as well as I'd expect.

Though my main concern is the CVs tier-to-tier balance. It is terrible, a tier higher CV player can dominate the other one with it's superior fighters.

I had battles when I lost my whole fighter squadron while they managed to shot down 1 or 2 planes. It would be nice if you could tone down the tier-to-tier progression of the fighters. I even thought of something like reduce the number of different fighters to 3 or 4 kinds of planes. For example the USN would only have the Buffalo(for Langley, and stock Inde), the wildcat for inde and saipan, the corsair for ranger and Lexington and the Bearcat for Essex. If you make it in a way that they would not be so different in stats for example the Bearcat would only have a 10-15% more firepower( and ofc better speed and such) then it would still feel like you've progressed but by not that much that you can dominate the other carrier without considerable losses. For research you could make like a stock corsair with the 6 x .50 cal M2s and a top one with the 20 mm AN/M2 cannons same with the bearcat and the wildcat. The langley could have a stock biplane with an upgrade to the buffalo. You might also stick an only tier 4 MM on the langley so players can learn and not get annihilated by better Independence players. 

[Takeda92]

In Guadelcanal, I know the IJN battleships had HE loaded brcause they wanted to bombared the airfield, they did not have time to switch to AP to engage the US ships defending it. Keep in mind it was a nightbattle and detection was poor.

[Aerroon]

 

And as I said do you think it feels historical that armor piercing 6" peashooter guns from a Cleveland can take off 20% of the Battleships hitpoints without actually piercing any armor?

 

Especially given their rapid firing speed, which means two cruisers with the smallest guns can sink a full hitpoints battleship from close distance before it has time to turn it's guns 180 degrees around and fire back.

 

For me this does not feel historical.

 

You know what else doesn't feel historical? The fact that we have so many battleships and other capital class ships floating around yet so few destroyers. Why doesn't this "historical" issue bother you? For every one battleship game you should have to play 5 destroyer games!