Jump to content

Big_Spud

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    5,231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7960
  • Clan

    [NSF]

Community Reputation

2,821 Superb

7 Followers

About Big_Spud

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Tonks, Botes and other machines of war.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,204 profile views
  1. Big_Spud

    Conqueror Kremlin

    Prime example which came to mind was Hammans sinking while she was pulled alongside Yorktown. The former broke up and sank relatively rapidly, before suffering a series of large explosions which dealt further pressure damage to the stricken carrier (in addition to her own torpedo hit), and killed a large number of crewmen in the water. Hammann had been pulled up alongside the flattop and was offering damage control assistance for some time, so I can't imagine her charges would have been primed for ASW work.
  2. Honestly, how do people have this much issue with ranked sprints...
  3. Big_Spud

    Conqueror Kremlin

    Essentially, it means he gets to be an [edited]. A very knowledgeable [edited]with well thought out and worded points which are correct more often than not, but an [edited]nonetheless. Waiting to see if I'm still classified as an idiot for saying some destroyer wrecks could be in such poor condition because of depth charge racks going off as the vessel sank (be it from being live at the time of sinking, or from sympathetic detonation), in spite of said thing being documented in several cases.
  4. If you actually played anything and weren't just a massive troll, you would know that its because the USN citadels are still perfectly vulnerable when broadside, as opposed to the literally untouchable RN citadels with the current model from tier VII-X.
  5. The comparison has been made many times by fellow WoT veterans, but I'll make it again: This is our Rubicon. Even if WG listens and torpedoes the entire idea, it's all down hill from here. They will simply find other ways to hyper-monetize the game.
  6. What the [edited] is this garbage?
  7. Big_Spud

    USN Battleship Alternate Tech Tree Branch?

    A significant portion of what went into up-gunning the Lexingtons in the first place was based upon incomplete reports of the British "Large Light Cruisers" then under construction (1916-19'ish), which had been reported as being armed with 15-inch and later 18-inch guns, with speeds in excess of 35 knots. Doubtless a lot of the impetus behind arming the Lexingtons so heavily was based upon the fact that there was the very real chance that had they been more lightly armed, a foreign design could simply out-gun them. This ended up sort of being the case with the Japanese fast battleship/battlecruiser designs of the late 1910's and early 1920's, which produced a series of ~30 knot ships armed with ten 16-inch guns and carrying relatively heavy armor by comparison. The Navy considered the 14-inch guns largely worthless beyond 20,000 yards, versus the aforementioned 30,000 yards for the 16-inch guns (and the enemy was obviously going to be increasing their own calibers as well). Heavier shells meant a relatively easier time achieving hits at distance as well, which further factors into their growing faith in aerial spotting and the new fire control computers. Given the knowledge that England was building similarly fast and overgunned designs (with no information on armor thicknesses), they rightly assumed that Japan would shortly be following suit with at least somewhat comparable designs, which they were. Thus, the increase in armament was necessary. Increased armament means a larger ship, and here again we arrive at the massive length of the Lexingtons as opposed to the earlier designs with only six 14-inch guns. The Navy wanted decisive hits dealt as early as possible to the enemy, another factor in choosing the largest rifles then available. The fact that they chose to mount eight of them rather than six in order to shrink the design has mostly to do with the fact that the Navy considered eight guns the bare minimum for effective fire control, six being entirely unsatisfactory. The most work they would be doing against enemy battle-lines would be done after smashing through the enemies (most likely Japan) screening units (most likely Kongos and small 5.5-inch armed cruisers) with their decisive advantage in speed, range and firepower, upon which time they could freely report the movements of the enemy fleet to the advancing battle line, and harass them at maximum range without exposing themselves to real danger. The Navy actively snubbed more heavily armored and slower "Hood-like" designs, because they saw no reason to build such a hybrid when they had no place in the blueprint laid out for the fleet. A battlecruiser armored like a battleship was pointless, because the scouting elements were not meant to directly engage the enemy battle-line anyways, and it would cost precious speed which would interfere with its primary purpose: fast scouting. And one final point, a large ship has one other distinct advantage over a smaller one, particularly in the scout role: it can sail at higher speeds in worse weather, for longer. Light cruisers and particularly destroyers have major issues actually utilizing their speed advantage in all but the calmest weather, and gunnery at that time would drop off precipitously. A Lexington would suffer no such issues, and would simultaneously still be able to run down/outgun smaller enemy scouting elements (or slower battlecruisers) in such a scenario (another key reason for the high speed and heavy battery: mopping up damaged stragglers after the battle line had smashed the opponents primary force). Aerial spotting eventually made the whole point of a dedicated large scout a moot point, but when they were being built this was not yet a serious consideration. In hindsight, yes it is a bit obvious that a gigantic scout with 16-inch guns and a 7-inch belt is a bit superfluous, but at that time it would have been a credible design decision in the face of potential enemy battlecruiser/scout designs of similar characteristics. Combined with the new 35 knot Omaha class and swarms of Clemsons, such a scouting force would probably have been the finest on the planet at the time.
  8. Big_Spud

    USN Battleship Alternate Tech Tree Branch?

    I specifically said that the tier VII for the alternative line could either be the Tennessee which trades overmatch for the 1943 rebuild, or one of the 14-inch quad armed NC preliminaries. Lexington was never meant to stand in the line of battle, in fact the was explicitly made not to do that, the designers favoring her 33-35 knot speed as a way to avoid needing to engage with anything but other battlecruisers or cruiser forces while she led the scouting divisions of Omahas and Clemsons. Even the increase from 14-inch to 16-inch rifles (and subsequent increase in elevation) was intended to extend the distances at which they could engage enemy ships without endangering themselves. Ranges out to 30,000 yards were considered entirely possible by this point, with aerial spotting and new fire control systems being viewed very favorably. C&R did indeed toss around increasing protection, but this either resulted in an unacceptable loss of speed (can't keep up with the Omahas) or an unacceptable increase in displacement/decrease in protection. The fact that such designs with more armor were explored doesn't mean much, considering the number of Lexington preliminaries there were before being ordered. Most of the "heavy" designs were inspired by the access to Hoods design later on. The Lexingtons were fleet scouts first by design, and everything else second.
  9. Big_Spud

    USN Battleship Alternate Tech Tree Branch?

    Only insofar that they are both 30+ knot designs. Nothing else is really shared with their design philosophies, especially not the intended roles.
  10. Big_Spud

    USN Battleship Alternate Tech Tree Branch?

    Nothing about the Scharnhorsts makes them a battlecruiser. They are rather lightly armed for their displacement, but that had more to do with politics than setting out with that armament in mind. The only design from the 1930's which could semi-passably be called a battlecruiser, are the Dunkerques, and even they are really just more of a "small-battleship" design made within tonnage/other external constraints. The Germans never referred to them as "Schlachtkreuzer (Battlecruiser)" or "Großer Kreuzer (Large Cruiser)". Only as Schlachtschiff. Calling them a battlecruiser is no more accurate than calling Graf Spee and her sisters "Pocket Battleships". German battlecruiser design doesn't have much to do with the Scharnhorsts, as we know what the actual battlecruiser design looked like: the O-Klasse. In this case, the O-Klasse actually sacrificed a significant portion (about half) of the armor afforded to the Scharnhorsts in order to carry the same designed armament of six 38 cm SK C/34's and travel at a higher speed. Lexington doesn't fit the line, regardless. North Carolinas final constructed form was still one of the "slow" designs, and she still has around double the actual protection afforded to the Lexington. The latter is simply too vulnerable for an actual battleship line, the average player would be transitioning from a slow 21 knot ship with good survivability and maneuverability, to one with terrible armor and next to zero maneuverability and high speed, and then back to one with better armor and maneuverability with a lower speed. It would be more consistent with the lines evolution to place one of the twelve-gunned 14"/50 North Carolina preliminaries at tier VII, which then leads into the upgunned 16"/45 design. This would help keep the speed more manageable, and ease the players into what they'll be seeing at tier VIII and beyond. We already have KGV doing roughly the same thing for the British line.
  11. Big_Spud

    USN Battleship Alternate Tech Tree Branch?

    Neither Bayern, Scharnhorst or Gneisenau are Battlecruisers. Unless you do a full paper CC line for the USN, the Lexingtons don't really have a place outside of a premium. They don't match the design philosophy of... well, any of the other completed designs, or the majority of the theoretical ones.
  12. Big_Spud

    azuma don't look SO bad

    She's decent, but pales in comparison to either of the other tier IX supercruisers. She really needed something special to make her stand out, be it the IJN CA dispersion for her main guns, or at least some more forgiving hull plating. Right now she's useful as a novelty for being closer in looks and features to the original B-65 "Super A-Class" design, but not much further beyond that. Personally, I think she exists solely to make Yoshino look more appealing.
  13. Big_Spud

    How AA is changing from 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6

    Sure love the fact that they decided it was a good time to start selling premiums again when there were still massive global changes being performed on how CVs functioned.
  14. [edited] WG, this is hilarious. MONTHS after they have restarted the sale of premium aircraft carriers, MONTHS after listing the carrier reworks as "feature complete" needing only "minor balance adjustments". Half a year after the rework hit the live servers, and here we are with yet another massive global mechanics change affecting every CV in the game. God, I'm glad I didn't spend a single dime on carriers. Pissed that I wasted XP on researching them and taking the time to learn how to play, but god damn this is a joke.
  15. Thank you for your well thought out and constructive responses.
×