IotaOmicron

triptyx, on 08 November 2013 - 08:05 PM, said: No worries mate! Please hang around in the forums and get to know everyone. Post your opinions in a few threads. You may find, if you contribute a bit, you'll get an invite sooner than you think. You never know. Either way, welcome to the forums. There's some great information about what we know about the game at the link in my signature. ill second this :) welcome m8

nice piece of model shipbuilding +1 :)

This sounds cool. I have a question though...are you going to do it or are you saying that WG should send some of their people to do it?

Nice pics man :) I haven't been on the Alabama yet...thanks for the interior view ;)

MORE MORE :popcorn: I have some pictures from the USS Constitution that I took on a tour. I'll have to put those up sometime... EDIT: Is that Mark 6 FCS?

krille96, on 18 April 2013 - 04:02 PM, said: The Sverige class coastal defence ships were the largest ships to serve in the Swedish Navy until that point. Their design was completely new and was influenced by the ships of the time. Their armament consisted of four 28.3 cm Bofors guns in two turrets and eight 15.2 cm guns in one double and six single turrets. During the Second World War they were the backbone of the Swedish Navy. Specification as built Displacement HMS Sverige 6,852 tons standard; 7,516 tons full load, 7,080 tons - Jane's Fighting Ships 1938 HMS Sverige reconstructed 1932-1933 HMS Drottning Victoria and HMS Gustav V: 7,125 tons standard 7,633 tons full load 7,120 tons - HMS Drottning Victoria - Jane's Fighting Ships 1938 7,275 tons - HMS Gustav V - Jane's Fighting Ships 1938 HMS Gustav V reconstructed 1929-1930, modernized 1937 HMS Drottning Victoria reconstructed 1935 Dimensions Length: 392.8 ft (119.7 m) - HMS Sverige Length: 396.6 ft (120.9 m) - HMS Drottning Victoria and HMS Gustav V Beam: 18.6 m (61 ft) Draught: 6.7 m (22.0 ft) Armour Belt: 200/150–60 mm (7.9/5.9-2.4 in) Turret: 8 in. Front, 4 in. Sides, 4 3/8 in Rear Conning Tower: 175/100–60 mm (6.9 in) Deck: 1 5/8 in. Redoubt: 4 in. Barbettes: 6 in. Small Turrets: 5 in. Front, 3 in. Sides Machinery 4 shafts; Curtis direct-coupled turbines 20,000 SHP in Sverige; 12 Yarrow type coal-fired boilers 2 shafts; Westinghouse Geared Turbines Manufactured by Motala Company in Gustaf V and Drottning Victoria 22,000 SHP; 12 Yarrow-type coal-fired boilers All ships was upgraded to oil fired boilers in the 30´ts, (In Gustaf V and Drottning Victoria it was however by strategic reasons decided to keep the ability to burn coal to secure their ability to operate on alternative fuel if the swedish oil supply was cut of) Armament 4x 283 mm (11.1 inch 45 cal.) Bofors guns (2 twin turrets), load in 17 seconds, rated as cramped, dividing partition between guns 8x 152 mm (6 inch 50 cal.) Bofors QF guns (1 twin turret superfiring over the forward 11 inch battery, and 6 single turrets, 3 on each beam) 4x 75 mm Bofors AA cannons mounted forward of the rear 11 inch battery 2x 57 mm short-barreled Bofors cannons (6 pdr.) 9x 6,5 mm MG 2x 457 mm (18 in) TT Armament after modernization (late 1930´ts to WW-II) The underwater torpedo tubes where removed, and the underwater torpedo room was converted into a artillery central to serve the installation of modern range meeters and fire control equipment for heavy, secondary and AA-gunnery All small gunnery and 2x152mm (6 inch 50 cal. ) was removed and replaced with modern Bofors 75mm, 40mm and 20mm Anti aircraft gunnery. The range of the 281 mm (11 inch) main-artillery was upgraded by new ammunition. Complement 450 after reconstruction Appearance All three ships looked similar until reconstruction. Gustav V had funnels trunked into one and the upper works modified heavily. Sverige had the fore funnel trunked back away from the superstructure which was modified, and kept the second funnel, making the ships very different in appearance between the main turrets. "Gustav-V" also har her forward superfiring 2x152mm tower removed, and replaced with a plattform for gyro stabilized AA-artillery ( 4 x 40mm bofors) while "Sverige" and "Drottning Victoria" had their midship single 1x152mm towers removed and replaced with gyro stabilized A ShipsRight elevation and deck plan as depicted in Brassey's Naval Annual, 1923 Three of these ships were built: HMS Sverige was ordered in 1912 and completed in 1917, built by Götaverken Gothenborg, she was paid for by public subscription as the Swedish people's gift to the country HMS Drottning Victoria (Queen Victoria) was ordered in 1915 and completed in 1921, built by Götaverken Gothenborg HMS Gustav V was built by Kockums shipyard in Malmö ordered in 1915 and completed in 1922. A fourth ship was considered but not built due to economic difficulties The ships were modernised in the 1930s with oil-fired boilers replacing the old coal-fired boilers, removal of underwater torpedo equipment, new anti-aircraft guns and fire control equipment @ green: until what point?

triptyx, on 12 April 2013 - 04:47 PM, said: :teethhappy: Gotta sleep sometime.... lols

Quaffer, on 31 March 2013 - 12:44 PM, said: The Alpha and Beta testers have their own private forums, unavailable to the hoi polloi. They are expected to contribute to that and keep each other and WG up to date. WG posts updates as required there. No need for email notifications. ^that^

lspraven, on 31 March 2013 - 03:54 AM, said: Battleships: US Ships: USS Montana [bB-67] (1940) USS New Jersey [bB-62] (1942) German Ships: KMS Bismarck (1940) KMS Tirpitz (1941) French Ships: Richelieu (1940) Japanese Ships: IJN Yamato (1941) British Ships: HMS Warspite [03] Dreadnought Battleship (1915) HMS Prince of Wales [53] (1941) Italian Ships: Andrea Doria (1913) Aircraft Carriers: US Ships: USS Saratoga [CV-3] (1927) USS Yorktown [Cv-10] (1943) USS Saratoga [CV-60] Conventional Powered Aircraft Carrier (1956) USS America [CV-66] (1965) USS Dwight D. Eisenhower [CVN-69] Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier (1977) USS Abraham Lincoln [CVN-72] Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier (1989) Battlecruisers: British Ships: HMS Hood [51] (1920) Destroyers: US Ships: USS Laffey [DD-724] (1944) USS Arleigh Burke [DDG-51] Guided-Missile Destroyer (1991) Cruisers US Ships: USS San Diego [CL-53] [CLAA-53] Light Cruiser/ Light Anti-Aircraft Cruiser (1942) USS Canberra [CA-70] Heavy Cruiser/Missile Cruiser (1943) USS Des Moines [CA-134] Heavy Cruiser (1948) USS Ticonderoga [CG-47] Guided Missile Cruiser (1983) Support Ships: US Ships: USS Appalachian [AGC-1] Amphibious Force Flagship (1943) (Note: Its an Amphibious Support Ship.) A Link to some info about the USS Appalachian: http://www.militaryf...ppalachian-AGC1 USS Wasp [LHD-1] Amphibious Assault Support Vessel (1989) (Note: It is part of the "Landing Helicopter Dock" Amphibious Assault Ship Program.) A Link to some info about the USS Wasp: http://www.militaryf...d=USS-Wasp-LHD1 Helicopter Carriers: US Ship(S): USS Wasp [LHD-1] Amphibious Assault Support Vessel (1989) (Note: It is part of the "Landing Helicopter Dock" Amphibious Assault Ship Program.) [Another Note: It is also a Helicopter Carrier.] A Link to some info about the USS Wasp: http://www.militaryf...d=USS-Wasp-LHD1 French Ship(S): Jeanne d'Arc [R 97] Conventional-Powered Helicopter Cruiser (1964) Japanese Ship(S): JS Shirane [DDH-143] Helicopter Carrier/Destroyer (1980) Russian Ship(S): Moskva [Project 1123 Kondor] Helicopter Cruiser (1967) Miscellaneous Ship(S): US Ship(S): USS Ponce [AFSB-1] Afloat Forward Staging Base (1971) A Link to some info about the USS Ponce: http://www.militaryf...USS-Ponce-LPD15 Ships that are Exceptions to the FAQ and Etc. Answers: Japanese Submarine Aircraft Carrier: IJN I-400 [sTo/ Sen-Toku] Submarine Aircraft Carrier (1944) The Only Patrol Boat That Is Actually Considered A Big Ship: US Ships: PACV/ACV (Pac-Vee/Monster) Air Cushioned Patrol Boat/Hovercraft (1966) A link to some info about the Monster: http://www.militaryf...-PacVee-Monster where is russia? :trollface:

commanderej, on 28 March 2013 - 01:50 AM, said: How do YOU think it sounds? PLS make an original post....GeorgePatton made a post almost identical to this one. EDIT: okay I read George's post. It is slightly different but not very.

madmanthan21, on 28 March 2013 - 05:58 PM, said: NOOOOO, we shall not waste neg rep, neg repping is an art, you get to do a maximum of one per day, there can only be one that +1

I am not even going to try to make a list of all the games that I have Beta/CB/Alpha tested. I will however give my computer specs... I use Windows 7 Home Premium My processor is Intel® Core2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz 2.40GHz RAM is 4.00GB OS is 64-bit

NordicRose, on 26 March 2013 - 07:15 PM, said: Been lurking since it started. Played allot of battlestations midway and pacific. Hopefully this will be better than those overly complex piles of slag. I expect nothing, this is the same company running WoT, so i expect the service to be.....poor for the most part. Except the support staff, i imagine they will be just as awsome. However i plan on solving the issues im interpreting by ordering every single pre order package available, buying EVERY premium tank, and building myself a computer that is actually half way decent....it's got 4 parts left before its done. EDIT* if they introduce subs, EVER. I'll just leave cause im not dealing with U-Boats. Arnt you in SOLAR Iota, that old clan i used to run, that my GF gave to my bros vacant account? If your still in it, you might as well leave cause he aint gonna do jack. He dont even play anymore. ya i am just in it for the name i dont do CW competitively anymore

OMG...Who put 10 on "nautical knowledge"? Whoever did that has a morbidly inflated ego. :teethhappy:

I don't think that anyone at this stage of WoWS development can call themselves an 'expert' except the DEVs...so i put no for the first question. I have been around since the beginning, I have participated in the Q&A and I have played many naval games. I haven't neg spammed someone on these forums yet.....so i answered that question with no. I like these polls George...can u make some more? :honoring: P.S. I don't think the DEVs HAVE to make the game a certain way. While it would be nice if they stay with some of the main things they have said would be in the game, I do not think that anyone will try to hold them to EXACTLY what they said in the Q&A threads. Everything requires a certain amount of flexibility to it and WoWS will not be an exception.