Iridium81

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4485

Community Reputation

92 Good

2 Followers

About Iridium81

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Portal profile Iridium81
  1. Kaigun for overall Japanese Naval development. To get a better understanding of what Battlecruisers were; Thunder in Its Courses: Essays on the Battlecruiser is a good read in my opinion. The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway, is really good for the US perspective on air combat, and the issues it faced in the Pacific. I hear Rikugun is great for the IJA perspective, I have read Japan's Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall, which was pretty good too. There is a lot of good material out there, but there is a lot of fluff dreg out there too. Gotta be careful it isn't just someone retreading topics with little detail or significance, there is a lot of that too unfortunately.
  2. This seems like wishful thinking to me, that and a case of mistaking tactical speed for operational speed. I personally tend to think shaving off 4-5 knots from this design spec and including very much needed armor would have made a far more balanced combatant. As we have noted previously, even with all the best intentions, and statements saying "X ship should not engage Y ships"; it never really pans out in reality. I think your last line about Kongo is a tad bit exaggerated, hit rates being what they are; it was more up to luck as to who would get the first significant strike against the enemy and make them combat ineffective. Not all engagements are going to be at maximum effective range with the command staff perfectly executing the battle. Designing thoroughbreds is a sure way to paint yourself into a corner when met with the one foe you were not designed to face, and you cannot run away due to Murphy's law.
  3. Beat me to it. A good game (if you can handle the excel spreadsheet graphics) for the dreadnought development period is Rule the Waves published by NWS. It allows the player to experiment with designs within technological limitations, maintaining colonies, attempting to manage diplomacy, and ending up at war with the wrong country at the wrong time. Either that or building your latest class of uber-BB's, only to have the bureaucrats sign a naval disarmament treaty banning the construction of those 200 million dollar ships, when they are just 3 months away from completion. SCRAPPED!
  4. Lexingtons were originally supposed to have 14" guns, and even if we suppose its armed with 16" rifles. Why is it armored against German 12" AP rounds post WWI? It was a bit of a cluster due to the last US armored cruisers being designed quite a while ago, and that while BB development had seen significant advances in both firepower and armor, the armored cruiser had seen only major advancement in firepower, armor lagged behind because of other demands. Curiously enough, Lexington represents a significant increase in protection because of that 7" belt. The prior class Tennessee had a 5" belt with 10" guns. It was just that US cruiser development expanded rapidly without time for lessons to sort out important characteristics. Kongo's 14" guns represent a dangerous threat against Lexington, and they really shouldn't for a design 20 years senior. Granted Lexington threatens Kongo as well, but it should; I don't consider that significant.
  5. It merely highlights WG's lack of game design and forethought. In terms of balance, CV game play, DD/CL/BB interaction etc; WG just doesn't seem to understand their own game well. Either that or greed is taking priority, and is resulting in a desire to keep the current state of the game for monetary reasons. I just don't understand why they continue to insist on gimmicks being the defining factor for nations... it seems hyperbolic, and damaging to game play overall.
  6. That is grade A bologna as far as I understand. Anyone can look into these things if they dig enough, just as you did, its just that the average player doesn't know to look, or doesn't care to because its too involved. So you get an uneducated population of people that are frustrated with game mechanics that were never properly told to them. WG would do themselves a service by educating the consumer so that they can make educated decisions, and enjoy the product more. I would imagine any nation interested in copying a piece of equipment would be limited by production capabilities more than espionage these days. China stole/bought knowledge on US MIRV systems ~20 years ago but only just now have gotten them into testing stages. More to the point, I don't think WG does this intentionally, unless they truly desire a 'have/have not' population so that one group can ridicule and demean the other because they spent an extra 15 minutes reading a wiki page. Which just seems asinine to me.
  7. Part of me accepts this, the other part says that WG doesn't even bother to properly document game mechanics within the client so that too is a 'fun' scavenger hunt. If the game is meant for the masses, and not the few hardcore enthusiasts; one would think they'd put this sort of stuff in the client so that it is well documented, and clear to the reader.
  8. T5 is also when BB accuracy starts to pose a more consistent threat to cruiser survival. Previously encountered BBs are both short on guns, accuracy or both. The player is forced to learn angling, torpedo attack prediction, and managing damage control at T5 or suffer sudden deaths far quicker than previous tiers. It doesn't help that BBs go from 12" guns to 14" guns, while cruisers are still mounting 6", or at best 7.1" guns at T5 still. The armor and firepower gap widens quite drastically after T4.
  9. No, I'd agree they do look like something just a little more sophisticated than an original 2.5D Doom sprite. Running maxed graphics at 3440 x 1440 doesn't help at all either.
  10. Its the smoke, dissipates in seconds. The effect looks wrong because it just vanishes without a trace.
  11. They could be relined, but you'd have to grind out the inner liner first before replacing it with a new one. In which case, building a new barrel might well be the same in cost (it wasn't cost efficient). A lot of guns were made this way. Also consider that Japan was building for long range deck hits similarly to the US (maybe not to the extreme as the US did, but they too understood likely combat ranges in the Pacfic). The question I ask myself; is 30-50m/s more muzzle velocity really worth the price of increasing the gun caliber to 50? Besides, how many more tons does this add to the turret design, what other characteristics would this affect? We're talking about turrets that already measured in the ~2400 ton range.
  12. What's the plan for this thread? More seriously, people want to be led, I get it, but when the question is asked, and you get 3 replies all different... the team is generally a cluster after. That isn't entitlement, its just stupid.
  13. Maybe send it to Navweaps.com; they have a bunch of papers/write ups on metacentric height, and other stuff that is rather niche to the design of warships. At least for peer review?
  14. Agreed, Gallant seems pretty run of the mill. Very similar to Gaede in its torpedo capability, more stealthy and agile, but trades AA for it. Meanwhile, Gaede has the bonus of a choice of main armament. A lack of AA will be a British trait until very late DD designs (postwar), so get used to it.
  15. I was trying to put it into terms that the OP used. Honestly, if someone is that interested in the detailed reasons behind the historical realities of the situation, they'll read resources. If they're just trolling the forums for agreement, then no amount of reasoning with them will work. I've stopped trying past that point. Maybe I should give more shrift to people, but I can only try so much at times.