Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Skipper86

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So what, you are meant to break down key words into something specific? I mean it didn't take much to figure out which words you needed to fill in the gaps, but using them together doesn't work, or individually. Kinda at a loss here
  2. I don't see any way that the Tirpitz can match either of these ships, perhaps the Tirpitz vs Iowa in a close range engagement, but that is about it. As for the Iowa and Yamato, I'd bet on the Iowa, for the reasons already explained, with the addition that the 16 Inch shells the Iowa used, although the calibre is a set size, due too the gun design, how they were loaded and fired etc, they were able to pack a lot more powder into those shells giving name too the "Super Heavy" 16 inch shells, on top of this, the reload speed I imagine was more efficient, giving the Iowa a decent boost in it's firing capability, and thus being able to match the Yamato's fire power. Yes this is from Wikipedia, just a quick search and I'm sure if the information exists it can be debunked. Mark 8 "Super-heavy" shell[edit] The Mark 7 gun was originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240-pound (1,020 kg) Mark 5 armor-piercing shell. However, the shell-handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700-pound (1,200 kg) APCBC (Armor Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) Mark 8 shell before any of the Iowa-class battleship's keels were laid down. The large-caliber guns were designed to fire two different 16 inch (406 mm) shells: an armor-piercing round for anti-ship and anti-structure work, and a high-explosive round designed for use against unarmored targets and shore bombardment. The Mark 7 guns and the 2,700-pound projectiles were 19.2 percent lighter than the 46 cm/45 Type 94 naval guns of the Japanese Yamato-class battleships, but had better armor penetration ability at long range. (Sectional density = 6.9 Grams per square MM for the IJN shell and 7.43 Grams per square mm in the USN gun.)
  3. Skipper86

    Flooding is kinda useless now

    I get what you are saying I do and to be completely fair about it, the two ships you mentioned are brawlers? At least the Kurfurst is, the German line is pretty much, where as the french line might not be but the mid late tier french have amazing secondaries for the same reason, close quarters combat. Charging smoke is a valid tactic for brawlers the problem though, is you are completely exposing your self to other things, it isn't an always tactic, it's still situational, and situationally, a DD still smashes BB's, it all comes down to fight IQ, positioning etc. I'am seeing an issue where getting floods seems to be a lot more difficult now as well, I have a feeling this is done to help compensate for the changes in Carriers? Either way, Battleships SHOULD crush a destroyer at close range, it's that simple, other wise where is the point?
  4. Skipper86

    Flooding is kinda useless now

    I disagree with the complaint. BB's were extremely vulnerable to DD's in every way, stealth at the push of a button, accurate high volume strikes that could start fires rather easily and torpedos that give a DD alpha strike potential that will remove a BB altogether, if you hit everything, sure, but try hitting everything in a BB, it ain't easy and even if you do, shatters, bounces and over pens are the majority of hits because you know.. Fairness mechanics. Add into that, how easy is it for a BB to counter a DD? It ain't you might get lucky with a salvo and do a bunch of hits, even with HE your not guaranteed a kill and so you shouldn't so let's table this idea for a second, return the flooding mechanics as was but allow BB Over pens, you know, shells that pass through the ship causing all kinds of holes, on the hull of a DD, maybe that should cause flooding too, for the sake of things that make sense, why the hell not? But as someone pointed out, compartmentalised hull sections, flooding control pumps on a Battleship don't add up to much when you loose crazy amounts of health to flooding in the old mechanics. Oh yeah, landing torps isn't easy, neither are landing battleship shells on targets that actually deal damage, unless you have Super Heavy AP American style or Japanese nuclear 18' inch guns.
  5. I want the KGV to have armour that represents it's Real life counter part, you know, the second most armoured battleship built in WWII? And in some cases better armoured than the Yamato. Torpedo protection would be nice as well, Oh and you know, Super heavy AP 14 Inch guns. You know something a little more realistic.
  6. Skipper86

    HMAS Australia - County Class

    I can understand that, how ever the HMAS Australia heavy cruiser, as I understand it seen more action and was for that time the pride of the fleet. Though in saying that, you can use that name with the Battlecruiser.. and the HMAS Canberra for the County Class. I'm not sure if they are going to add in Battlecruisers from that very early WWI era into the game, I'd expect they wouldn't.
  7. Skipper86

    Perth vs. Huanghe

    Has any one got an updated suggestion for Captain Skills on the Perth? IFHE? With or without Demo Expert etc?
  8. Skipper86

    HMAS Australia - County Class

    Can we expect the HMAS Australia in the Commonwealth tree, with the addition of British heavy cruisers being added? I think it would fit in at Tier 6 or 7, no higher than that though.
  9. Skipper86

    HMAS Vampire should have smoke Crawl

    Yes yes, sure sure. But back too the Topic at hand. Smoke Crawl ? Yes, why not. Haida is Canadian fyi. And being that the HMAS Vampire is suppose to be reflecting her use as an Australian ship, can we get the historically added Second set of Torp tubes near the back? Australia made this modification for use in WWII.
  10. Skipper86


    On the topic of the Vampire, could the Developers please take note that under the Australian colors the Vampire was fitted out with 2x3 Launchers? That was her WWII configuration. I feel as if this ship really lacks in the area of torpedo warfare.