Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

103 Valued poster

About Iridium81

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  1. I don't know where you got this idea from, Kongo originally had an 8" belt and the rebuild she received never touched it.
  2. Just to further elaborate, HE damage ≠ Fire damage. The mission explicitly asks the player to deal damage via fires, not shell hits.
  3. Yeah, I can confirm it worked for me. Completed it while doing 21k damage in fires, and won the game.
  4. Its ironic that you bring Yubari up because it too was designed to replace 5,500 ton cruisers on a much smaller displacement. Japan was trying to pack the firepower of the CLs into a smaller format, and it succeeded in proving many design theories, but ultimately failed as a ship. Good prototype for testing purposes regardless. All good, but still only meant to lead DDs. Agano is odd only because it was designed in 1941, built in late '43-44. Meanwhile the closest CL to compare against it would be something like the Arethusa class built in 1934. As you say it might fit as a fun, but not a competitive ship.
  5. I just can't think of any reason to take a cruiser with all the baggage that brings, that would make it worth taking over a DD. Even with cruiser consumables; CLs have citadels, and will be a bit less stealthy than DDs, its stuck in an awkward place overall. Might as well take Kiev for comparison.
  6. It merely equals a DD in salvo size. Meanwhile has a significant upgrade over DDs in that of a six inch battery. Downsides, it's protected by a 76 mm belt iirc, and has four newer 3" guns in single mounts which would be good for AA only, citadel would likely be of similar IJN cruiser lineage. It is a reliable design when used in its intended purpose (facing enemy DDs), but shouldn't face other cruisers at anything above tier 4 if we ignore it's torpedoes. Why take a cruiser that only matches a DD in torpedo attack performance, if you not going to use the guns and negate your stealth? It seems to be a compromise in reality due to limited resources, and a desire for new destroyer leaders to replace the aging Kuma/Sendai/5,500 ton CL classes. It doesn't translate well into the game without some shoehorns.
  7. Eh. Agano class was designed as a DDL, so its 4 x 2 mount type 93s is only making them on par with DD's it would lead in terms of salvo. That said, having them center mount makes firing the whole batch much easier. 6", 2 x 3 mounts doesn't seem that great when compared to other CLs in from the same period.
  8. CA-CL Differentiation

    The problem is that the difference between CA and CL is only the gun caliber. They both hail from light/protected cruiser stock, the only other type that could have continued being armored cruisers, but they morphed into the idea of the battle cruiser, or if you like... simply stopped existing due to treaty restrictions. The Washington Naval Treaty didn't really make CA/CLs different beyond the guns, and since they both adhere to a 10k ton limit (or at least they were supposed to); protection schemes are limited due to the old 'speed/firepower/armor' formula. In game? Meh, WG will do whatever they please.
  9. What was the impetus for this move? CA taxes, etc?
  10. ST Stalingrad Initial Stats

    Agreed on all of Yashma's comments. I'd just like to add that as much as I like hard facts, it doesn't tell the full story of these ships, there are a lot of factors that cannot be explained with simple numbers. Saying such-and-such's belt is 12" thick, does not explain its coverage, length in proportion to the ship, oddities it might possess due to design issues, etc. Wikipedia is a good quick and dirty source, but it lacks a lot of information that is more specific, and detailed in order to properly describe these designs.
  11. No nation has the combination you seek. Each type of armor scheme has it strengths and weaknesses. Weapons come at a cost of tonnage, which typically equates something else missing, be it armor, speed, habitability, sea keeping, or whatever else you can think of. As your first answer stated, there is nothing simple about what you ask.
  12. Italian Tier X Cruiser

    I think you started this conversation with an attitude problem, and assumed I should know what someone else knows. I also think you believe that i have some anti-Italian bent when it couldn't be farther than the truth. Paper designs are all fine and well, but looking at design lineage and extrapolating on it is a common practice. Sorry if I expected the thread to be for anyone interested rather than a select few all ready in the know. Do you always assume the worst intention upon reading something? It's no wonder the community is getting more divisive and virulent.
  13. Italian Tier X Cruiser

    They were asking for references, they are the only things that exist in history relative to the topic. What else would you have someone show? Seriously, I'm beginning to think you have issues that don't stem with the topic at hand.
  14. Italian Tier X Cruiser

    To be fair, Italy did increase the distance between gun axis, from 100cm to 127cm in the Garibaldi turrets, and did prove to have superior dispersion to their predecessors. It isn't a matter of whether Italy was capable, they just didn't have the resources or time to develop a larger project. Feel free to bring out designs or napkin drawings, WG is going to need them. Not sure why you had this reaction honestly...