Jump to content

Danyir_Amore

Members
  • Content Сount

    286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4963

Community Reputation

32 Neutral

About Danyir_Amore

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

731 profile views
  1. Danyir_Amore

    Vanguard Vs. Monarch

    expert loader is very useful for the British line.
  2. Danyir_Amore

    Atago now good only as a port queen?

    The reason you do the same damage with Zao as Atago is they have the same guns. Even though Zao has two more and they reload slightly faster which gives better paper dpm, this is countered by the fact that the Zao shoots at more high tier targets which have better armor that causes shatters. There is also a hidden stat for fire chance that makes it harder to start fires on ships by tier. At tier X the actual fire chance per shell is about half of what it actually says on the per shell hit chance. Because of this you should focus low tier BB's (after dds and broadside Cruisers ofc) because you will remove their guns (which can overmatch you) much quicker which makes things a lot safer for you.
  3. Danyir_Amore

    Report Your Local CV

    people will report you for anything, even playing well, just out of spite. I think I just lost two karma points because some dipshits said I shouldn't hang back against multiple Des Moines. I was in a Gearing and staying right on the edge of their radar range. Pay attention to what people say in chat though, sometimes even if they come off as [edited] they are right. Just don't worry about karma because people are petty [edited].
  4. Danyir_Amore

    How to get the most out of the DM

    You did well, and it was good play for the situation, but it wasn't really normal. The DM really does not do so well in open water and you got kinda lucky, slightly different RNG and any of those BB pens you took could've been Cits. Also the only reason you were able to retire was that there was only one DD in the match and neither he nor the CV were doing their job spotting for the team. Both the Buffalo and DM went broadside to you when they didn't have to, you took advantage of it which was good, just don't get used to it. The DM should have killed you, but he inexplicably switched to AP when you were nose on then showed you his own broadside. I'm guessing to unmask his rear turret but over steered. I'm not trying to be a downer, just saying that if you play like this against people that don't make mistakes you are gonna have a bad time. Generally, since you can only control how you play, you don't want to rely on the enemy screwing up.
  5. Danyir_Amore

    Vanguard Vs. Monarch

    Never had Vanguard but the Monarch is amazing. Play it like an IJN cruiser, use your stealth to get up close, turn, sneak attack the broadside of some poor sap then kite away. Rinse and repeat. Try not to spam the HE your AP is good used correctly, HE should just be for people that think they can get away with bow tanking.
  6. Danyir_Amore

    Do we want a Dunkerque buff?

    There is a big difference though, Richelieu can bow tank against anything but the Yamashi. Dunkerque can't tank against 380+ which includes two same tier BB's. Maybe it doesn't matter as much at that tier because people don't know the overmatch mechanics as well, but it should be a significant handicap.
  7. Danyir_Amore

    Hermes and Furious

    The problem I have with Hermes is that the bombs have no penetration and will even shatter on cruisers. I can score plenty of hits but they don't do anything at all. only TB's and rockets for DDs are worth anything.
  8. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Yes I would call that disingenuous. Neither of these are examples of "accuracy". While the Scharnhorst scored a hit on her third salvo you forget to mention it took her another twenty minutes to score another hit, not exactly consistent. Warspite was over-shooting the Cesare and happened to hit the funnel because it got in the way of what would otherwise have been a miss. The Straddling of the DD's you mentioned is also deceptive. Just because they landed close enough to throw splinters on the DD's does not mean they were close enough to potentially hit a BB. Even a much smaller land based 155mm can throw potentially deadly splinters over an area the size of a BB let alone a BB caliber shell. This in no way indicates accuracy capable of threatening a protected magazine.
  9. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    And what FCS were being used at the time that these ships received their armor refits? What was being used when Dunkerque was built? This kinda matters for the discussion since the ships in question were built/rebuilt and designed based on the capabilities at their time. The Kongo class's refit had enough horizontal armor to handle plunging fire from any realistic scenario involving the battleships the IJN planned on having them fight. By the time any FCS was in common service that could engage at such a range in WWII even the fast battleships were obsolete as anything other than AA escorts and shore bombardment. Even when the opportunity was presented they still did not engage BB's at such ranges. This is disingenuous, such fights were rare because the new systems were themselves rare and fights between BB's were also rare because they had been rendered obsolete by aircraft and Submarine. Despite this the USN had a very clear opportunity to shoot at BB's at such range at Surigao strait. Admiral Oldendorfs ships had the fancy radar fire control systems by then that picked up the Japanese fleet at a range of 38km which our resident armchair admiral assures us was "critical danger" range. For some strange reason Admiral Oldendorf had his ships hold their fire until they were under 21km. Could it be that maybe he understood the likelihood of striking a magazine at that range was basically nil, and it would be idiotic to attempt it? Hell at the range they did engage at according to our armchair admiral's wonderful charts and tables, the two Fuso class BB's and the Mogami should not have had any protection against the 14" and 16" shells when they were engaged, yet somehow all three ships survived the gunfire to be torpedoed by DD's or sunk by aircraft.
  10. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    I mean if you think you are smarter than every gunnery officer in the history of ever, then I don't think I've got enough crayons to explain it anyway. Really? They didn't see the need to respond to the Scharnhorst in order to save weight? Look, you've tried pretty damn hard to argue against it, but you can't escape the fact that BC's were made to run away from BB's. Whereas by the beginning of WWII, The Kongo's, the Dunkerques, the Renowns, and the Hood were all meant to go towards BBs and had been designed with that in mind or received refits for the purpose. They were the beginning of the fast Battleships.
  11. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    So you are leaving out that the Dunkerque would be on an intercept course, unless Scharnhorst was running straight away or coming directly at Dunkerque they would be somewhat offset. Not to mention Scharnhorst would have the exact same problem but have fewer guns. More importantly most of the magazine would be protected by the fact it was below the waterline, there was only a small area where a shell could pass through both the water and the armor to hit the magazine without going to high. Not to mention that the shell would also pass through her liquid ballast which was in the spaces marked C and B on that diagram. So yeah there was a weakness to her armor, but it was small and more to the present in all battleships certainly not an "easy" shot. Scharnhorst herself was lost because she took such a hit from the Duke of York (a KGV) to her rear that knocked out a boiler. Prince of Wales (another KGV), took a hit below her belt from Bismarck that passed through the water and would have taken out her boilers if it had exploded, Bismarck in turn received a hit from Prince of Wales that knocked out one of her boilers which resulted in her doom since she lost the speed to return to France. Were these ships just battlecruisers as well since they had flawed protection from other BB's? No Battleship had perfect protection against other battleships, that was simply beyond possibility. Instead their protection was meant to give them a reasonable chance of survival and victory.
  12. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Yeah Pheonix already corrected me on that. But the principal still remains the same, The Dunkerques were meant to fight BB's as well as hunt the Panzerschiffs. This extended mission scope brings them beyond what BC's were meant to do.
  13. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    No ship in the history of ever, has hit another ship at that range. I'm actually an FO, so I know a thing or two about gunnery. Unfortunately I can't really explain it all to you since its classified, but there are reasons why, despite all the silly charts you may see, the record for the longest ever hit was 24 km and involved a lot of luck. That is hitting the entire ship, not a specific point on the ship. There is a reason why most engagements took place at much closer ranges and still involved a lot of missing. Frankly I'm a bit suspicious that you are being disingenuous, since the same sort of sites that are giving you this gunnery information likely also mention that the USN doctrine was to begin opening fire at 25k yds. As for Dunkerque, they stuck all her guns on the fore end for a reason. There was also a reason why they didn't bother to build a ship in response to Scharnhorst, but did build ships in response to the Littorios.
  14. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Same idea, they wanted a ship that could fight the Italian battleships of the time in addition to the Panzerschiffes. The idea of having an expensive BC around when there weren't many CA around to chase down wasn't well received.
  15. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    "The 283 mm SK C/34 gun was relatively fast loading, compared with other armament of this size. It could deliver a shot every 17 seconds. The ballistic properties of the guns made them effective against the new French Dunkerque class, which had an armored belt 225–283 mm, barbettes of 310–340 mm, at standard fighting distances." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_C/34_naval_gun On paper only. You and whoever wrote that misinformed statement are completely ignoring the fact that Dunkerque was designed to approach head on which meant her armor was more than capable of protecting against 11" shells at such angles. Umm again no, the ship was not uncontrollably flooding as a result of four hits, not two. the two that penetrated its armor caused moderate damage as reported by the captain. The ship was did not sink until it was hit by aerial torpedo, not gunfire. And again the point here being that not having impervious armor was shared with the Battleship, that there has never been a battleship with impenetrable armor. And all you did was copy some penetration statistics which completely ignore the realities of combat. shells don't hit nice and flat surfaces in combat, they can hit at some extreme angles which greatly increase the effective thickness of armor, precisely why the Kongos had a complex armor scheme with diagonal bulkheads. As for the Kongo being in "critical danger" at a range of 27500m I would go with no, since those ships weren't capable of hitting each other at all at such ranges let alone the extremely small area they would have to hit the magazine. Furthermore the toughness of the armor scheme was proved by Kirishima, despite suffering at least 11 16"/45 hits (8 visually confirmed by USS Washington, 3 underwater hits confirmed by examination of the wreck, very possibly more) at extremely close range (which no battleship armor would have stopped without being angled) she did not sink for a few hours which allowed most of her crew to survive. This is all moot anyway. The extra armor was not put on these ships so that they could fight heavy cruisers. It was put on in anticipation of fighting other capital ships, this takes them away from the mission of a BC and makes them fast battleships. Yes the Dunkerques were not made to fight those battleships but the older Italian battleships which had 320mm armament. They responded to the later BB's with the Richelieu class.
×