Jump to content

NGTM_1R

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    4,691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2055
  • Clan

    [XODUS]

Community Reputation

1,973 Superb

About NGTM_1R

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Birthday 02/23/1985
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    I'm on a boat and-
  • Interests
    Wo?

WG

  • Position
    ---

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is the actual problem. Public test was mostly done against bots, not players, and bots are useless for testing something like this.
  2. Wargaming suggested, back before Alpha started, they actually had enough data for up to five lines of US battleships. It is quite possible a second battleship line might cap with 18" guns.
  3. NGTM_1R

    Pre-Dread Battleship vs WWII Cruiser

    South Dakota was combat ineffective by 5"-to-8" fire. Her fire control couldn't talk to her guns and a loss of electrical power is a major casualty with numerous secondary effects. The actual action report on the battle makes the specific point that heavy cruiser fire was able to render South Dakota ineffective. The most important damage done to Atlanta was actually done by San Francisco; Hiei had no part of it and was entirely ineffective against Atlanta, with her effectiveness against San Francisco being due entirely to the short range allowing accurate point-blank fire from her turret optics rather than her (unable to communicate with the guns) director. Flat-trajectory superstructure hits happen at much longer ranges than 2000 yards; this is back to damage done to Bismarck. We could also go on to point out Yamashiro's fate too; the majority of shell hits she likely took were cruiser calibers. The characterization of the action in the Battle of the Barents Sea is entirely wrong; the German force was not operating as a solo merchant raider group but a pair of heavy cruisers with destroyer escort seeking to attack and destroy a convoy in conventional battle. They were in turn ambushed in the polar night by Sheffield who managed to damage Admiral Hipper and force Hipper to call for help from the destroyers and Lutzow, which got one of the destroyers killed and Lutzow forced to disengage by accurate and voluminous 6" gunfire. And the most important point you are overlooking is that we have been discussing battleships being rendered ineffective by cruiser gunfire/gunfire that did not pierce their armor...and these were much larger, much heavier ships, where a shellhit is less likely to land upon something important. Schleswig-Holstein is 14218 tons full-load, 22.2m beam, 127.6m long. By comparison, a Myoko-class cruiser is 14980 tons full load, 204m long, and 17m beam. Even a York-class ship is 10350 tons full load, 160m long, and 17m beam. South Dakota is 207.26m long, with a 32.97m beam, and a full load weight of 45233 tons. Almost double the length, half again as wide, three times the displacement and more. A lot more real estate for shells to fall into without hitting something critical immediately or for fires to be contained in without being on top of something. Raw size has a big effect on the risk to critical systems for hits, and Schleswig-Holstein is not a big ship. Her risks are much higher.
  4. NGTM_1R

    Pre-Dread Battleship vs WWII Cruiser

    The problem with this viewpoint is that it in no way matches actual combat experience in WW2 surface actions. The inability to penetrate the armor is not actually a hindrance to rendering the ship combat ineffective, as demonstrated by what happened to Hiei, South Dakota, Bismarck, and others. Once it has fires on deck and no working fire-control then the game is over and the opposing cruiser can close in and pound on the target as it pleases. It's also wrong to count the casemate guns in this situation as they have little in the way of fire-control or stabilization compared to the primary armament and are intended for very-close-range engagements, under ten thousand yards despite their theoretical maximum ranges. Engaging at 20k yards or even 15k yards with them isn't going to produce a noticeable number of hits compared to the main battery. And a WW1 predread design is going to be an easier target than a WW2 heavy cruiser at 20k yards; it's slower and does not maneuver as well. Possibly? Schleswig-Holstein's output on its main battery is very low due to the fact it only has four guns, lower even than the Deutschlands, and the Deutschlands were known to find themselves in situations where they had to run away from 6" gun cruisers that had established fire superiority; Sheffield did it alone and Ajax and Achilles managed it together. I would give it slightly better than even odds against a York, a County-class ship, or a Furutaka/Aoba, but 50/50 against a Pensacola or Myoko and less than a half chance of winning a battle against a Takao/Mogami or any US heavy cruiser class from New Orleans to Des Moines. Its chances of winning drop precipitously if it has to fight them at night where ranges are shorter, rapid fire counts more, and Japanese types can employ their torpedoes effectively. Note this is about who has to disengage (or try to) more than about who gets sunk. In almost all cases the initiative on whether to fight the battle further lies with the cruiser.
  5. NGTM_1R

    Pre-Dread Battleship vs WWII Cruiser

    This was very much abnormal for pre-dreads though. Schesweig-Holstein in 1939 is not a good example of a predreadnought battleship. Most of them have significantly less gun elevation and use considerably worse projectiles and powder throughout their careers. Even WW1-era battlecruisers (or battleships) like Derfflinger, unreconstructed, would be outranged by the average 8" cruiser of 1940. (Indeed, Derfflinger and her sisters' maximum range is 10k yards shorter than that of most USN heavy cruisers and actually about the same range they would normally consider comfortable combat range.) To be honest this entire setup has been framed very badly to produce an outcome that could be extrapolated to the general; Exeter is among the weakest 8" cruiser designs and strongest possible predread has been chosen.
  6. NGTM_1R

    8” Omaha variant?

    Not without significant changes. That said, it was at least considered in Scout Cruiser 1921, which was intended to counter the Hawkins-class. A widened Omaha hull would have carried two twin 8" turrets. (For reference, ingame Phoenix is basically the Scout Cruiser 1919 design and Omaha is Scout Cruiser 1920.) The design was not pursued and eventually evolved into Pensacola after more work.
  7. NGTM_1R

    How would you modernize the following capital ships?

    One of the major concerns here is deck space and a lot of these ships just don't have it. If they have wing turrets or Q turrets, forget it; you'll never make a decent modernization to WW2 standards because there's nowhere to put light AA or DP secondaries without them probably getting beaten up every main battery salvo. Lion might be the only exception, for two reasons: her large after deckhouse and the British developing the 4" "Between Decks" mount pretty much specifically for replacing casemate guns like those in her after deckhouse and forward superstructure with useful DP guns. Whether actually rebuilding Lion is a useful exercise is another question, but scattering 4" BD on the forward superstructure and the aft deckhouse would give her a modern secondary battery and she'd have room to put some light AA without risking wrecking it every time she used her main battery. New oil engines and boilers could hopefully reduce her stacks to one(need more space!) and improve her speed. A turret rebuild for better elevation would improve her gun range. Rearmoring or adding bulge is a lot more tricky and gets to the heart of Lion's problems but even just a couple of inches of deck and no improvements of belt and you could easily cast the new Lion in the same role as an Alaska or B.65; a heavy cruiser killer. People believed that was a useful role at the time.
  8. Not exactly. This was more a problem on cruisers and battleships with their 5" amidships but it was a noted problem than 20mm and 40mm crews tended to get beat up by extended firing of the 5" battery and there are at least a few cases of diagnosed concussions. The 20mms in particular had it rough since a lot of the time they'd just get stuck wherever there was room enough to play cards, regardless of the arcs of bigger weapons. It was less of a problem on ships with open 5" mounts since the 5" crews were also subject to the effect and tended to moderate their firing rate as it started to become a problem.
  9. Aside from the fact he was obviously preparing the country for war? His personal promises to and regard for Churchill? FDR being a noted Anglophile? The fact he approved an undeclared war in the Atlantic against German U-boats in early 1941? The United States and Britain having coordinated their plans for the war before the US actually entered it? FDR's personal conversations with people like William Stephanson expressing his desire to bring the US into the war with Germany directly and his willingness to share classified material with the BSC? His repeated offers of covert and overt help to the British before US entry to the war, including lend-lease, the cash-and-carry policy which only the UK could actually achieve, the destroyers for bases deal? There is a great deal of evidence for this proposition.
  10. Superior secondary battery and layout while retaining all their antisurface firepower. The deletion of the 5th turret was permitted only because of the demonstrated fact that improved hoists would allow the remaining guns to fire faster, giving the Clevelands the same weight of 6" shell over time as the Brooklyns and Saint Louises. The fore and aft turrets gave them much better arcs of fire for their heavy flak, plus they were getting another four broadside barrels of 5"/38; the superstructure was also redesigned amidships especially to make room for additional midweight AA and give it better firing arcs. The Fargo-class was a further development along the same lines, intended to improve the sky arcs of the fore-and-aft 5"/38s and amidships 40mm battery. This is pretty doubtful. FDR was probably indifferent to a war with Japan, but he actively wanted to fight Germany.
  11. NGTM_1R

    Best Naval Engagement of WWII

    Going to for one not listed: the Battle of Ormoc Bay. It was the only battle of the war to include minefields, shore batteries, surface ship guns and torpedoes, aircraft, and night combat in a single action. The US DesDiv was composed of modern Gearing-class ships, smothered a Japanese DE with gun hits in seconds then nearly sank the second one except for the fact it ran through a minefield to escape, fought off the planes, dodged the mines thanks to their sonars, and suppressed the shore batteries with gunfire, but lost one of their number to the second DE's 24cm torps. It ably illustrates the material and technical superiority of the USN, but also shows that the Japanese were not merely lambs to the slaughter; desperation, audacity, and a few areas of superiority of their own in training and weapons meant that they got their own shots in.
  12. NGTM_1R

    Kantai Collection Discussion Thread Kai

    Poi. Now with 1000% more lifelike.
  13. NGTM_1R

    Kantai Collection Discussion Thread Kai

    "Hey Mutslug-" "U WOT M8"
  14. NGTM_1R

    Kantai Collection Discussion Thread Kai

    Valentine's Day at the naval base must be pretty close to an approximation of hell. You can't get past the front gate without breaking the hearts of a dozen destroyers and having two siscons trying to murder you, and it will only get worse from there.
  15. NGTM_1R

    Kantai Collection Discussion Thread Kai

    No one ever accused Dai of not getting moderated on occasion.
×