Xplato

oh yeah no doubt. I always assumed that Gato was just a placeholder at tier 10 for testing. Every stat is almost gurrenteed to change. well other than the amount of torpedo tubes I guess. you can't really change that since it's hard set at how many a sub had.

HMM interesting. I don't know then. Something about the leaks are just puzzling. WG Choices are just wierd. I can't wrap my head around it. Why Gato, and Balao? why not just Gato? Both ships are so similar they basically are the same. Why not add Tang when the XXI is in the game files? Tang is just an American sub with the advanced from the XXI thanks to GUPPY after all. Only thing I can think of is that WG has been able to go see the only surviving Tang class ships in turkey. where as there are 6 Gato class subs in the US that are preserved. I fundamentally don't understand it. it would be like if the Colorado was the tier 10 in the US BB line even though the Iowa class exists and is preserved.

Is their a way to check if they were in 0.8.6 and before? Halloween subs looked very similar to XXI, Gato. so wouldn't be a too insane if WG build the base models first, and then build the Halloween ships for the event from them.

Still sounding like a child aren't we? you sure you have the parental supervision to post here?

We don't know if both are the same, or if it's just submerged. If It's just Surfaced I guess that's not too extreme Surface speed increase, Gato for instance did 21 knots Historically. If it's both, well you won't reach that speed until Skipjack. Skate could do 22 submerged.

Sounds like something a child would say. Guess we know your age now don't we?

Isn't that obvious? The torpedo states especially. Acoustic Torpedo's for a boat that was built before the US even developed the mark 27? If the Gato was replaced by say the Tang, or barracuda I could believe that, but the Gato? nope. That's like putting the 16inch /50 mark 7 in the New Mexico.

Iowas post war career ensures they had a point. Keep in mind I'm not saying they were widely successful.Just they had some point. Even if it was just a bigger cruise missle cruiser at the end of it's carrer. I'm not gauging The Iowas use as in battles. If all we are talking about is in battles then yeah Iowa was 100% useless. As for the yamato, that's not a meme. It 100% was useless. Had IJN put the resources into building almost anything else other than the yamato and Mushaashi, it would have been a much better investment. crapEven the I-400 had more worth than the yamato. you do a lot more trolling than I do. and I just got done fishing for bass too. Which is just humorous.

Most likely placeholder values. and just testing. Doubt Gato and Balao will be tier 10. Some nuclear sub is almost a gurrentee for tier 10. Could be nautalis. could be skate, could be seawolf, could even be skipjack. Gato would have it's speed increased by 3.3 times. which is quite frankly even from me idiotic. if WG wants subs to go say 30 knots there are plenty of candiate to choose, you don't have to increase something by anywhere near that amount to get to 30 knots. Better tree would be: 1: S class 2: Cachalot 3: Porpoise 4: Salmon 5: Sargo 6: Gato Balao(choose either one or get both, both lead to the next tier) 7: Tench 8: Tang 9: Seawolf USS Nautilus(as tier 9 premium) 10: Skate, or Skipjack. Or both. And USS Barbel as an alternative tier 10. or you could probally make a whole new line for it. Their you go WEEGEEE I just fixed your terrible [edited]tree. We have World war 1 era submarines, interwar, World war 2, and Post war.

Schearn is a battlecruiser. Not your fault for being incorrect. also had you read you would know that I'm 100% only applying the anti-sub logic to BB to prove a point. I don't agree with it at all. As for me being wrong, that's kinda my whole point. something all of you seem to not understand. Anyone who arbatrally says a ship has to be sunk during a battle to count in something is automatically incorrect. any sane person knows Washington sunk kirishima. That's beyond [edited]obvious. it does not matter when she sunk Washington sunk her. Just like it does not matter when USS Sealoin sunk Kongo :P. Or when the Royal Oak was sunk.

Kirishima sunk after the battle was over. henceforth it doesn't apply. Every anti sub like killroy always maintained a ship must be sunk during the battle. I'm just using that same logic to show how idiotic it really is. Yamashiro was sunk by Torpedo's. Fusou was also. Jutland happened during World war 1. so it's out of the scope of what I asked. well I am applying idiotic rules to prove a point. That much should be obvious. Though only to show how the anti sub crowd like kilroy are complete idiots. Personally I think it's idiotic to say that since a ship wasn't sunk during the arbitrary time frame of a battle it doesn't count is well idiotic. Take Kirishima. I think we all can agree Washington sunk it. That's unmistakable. However take Kongo and USS Sealion. any time you mention that a Submarine sunk a Battleship(or any capitol ship) the excuse is that it didn't happen during battle so it doesn't apply. I merely took that same logic and applied it to every battleship on battleship engagement. to Show that trying to say that battles are what matters is flat out idiotic. people during World war 2 didn't care about battles. People on the Washington didn't care if they caused the kirishima to sink that very hour, or 5 hours later after they had left it to sink. WOWS isn't a game about naval battles. it never has been. It's about naval warfare. Something every class of ship has a role in. Submarines, battleships, cruisers, destroyer's, and yes even carriers. Sunk after the battle. soesn't apply. hood was a battlecruiser, Scharn was also a battlecruiser when it was sunk. so neither apply.

I mean I agree with you on the Missouri. and BB in general were complete wastes. However I would change that to the Yamamto, or a New Mexico class imo. The Iowa class proved their worth in the post war time period. Most BB did not. Panama canal wouldn't have changed anything. The war was over at that point. Destroying it would just be an inconvenience to the US and the rest of the world something even the Japanese High command knew was an idiotic idea. Again I-400 was a marvel but was a total failure and waste of materials and more importantly time.

doing what? Launching aircraft? What is the total amount of ships sunk by the I-400? How much tonnage did it sink? What casualties did it inflict? They were wonder weapons that while yes are marvels of what the IJN could do, ultimately were failures. Just like how the USS Los Angeles was a marvel with it's air launched planes in the 20's, it was still a failure. same for the I-400's

Kirishima was sunk after said battle. doesn't apply. Same reason why the sinking of the taiho doesn't apply for Submarines. Yamashiro was sunk by torpedo's from a DD obviously doesn't apply. Why admit to myself I have every ground to stand on. Battleships never sunk other battleships in battle during World war 2. Ever. It's that simple. I'm just using the same logic you use against Submarines. Shokaku was sunk during the battle of the Philippine sea. by USS Albacore. So was Taiho. Both happened during the time frames of the same battle 19 june-20th of june. Submarines sunk a capitol ship during a battle, Battleships did not. Subs 2-BB 0

Well I guess it's WG job to make one up then. Also that leads to the general idea that maybe Japan shouldn't have a Submarine line if it can't support one.. The most famous japanese Submarine is just a failed submerged carrier after all.