Fog_Carrier_Essex

I believe your first sentence is in reply to Skipper86's reply, but I would like to see your source on that information? I would add that Musashi suffered a misfire in No. 1 Turret during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, and had to evacuate the turret and flood the magazine to prevent detonation. See Musashi's own TROM for DAR information, and footnote with details: http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm IJN designers and records admitted that the improvised 45 degree plate was inadequate to prevent flooding from similar damage. Yamato also suffered an AP bomb hit from the first wave of airstrikes which tore away 60 feet of deck and started an uncontrollable fire, which naval historians attribute as the likely cause of the subsequent underwater detonation near the No. 3 Turret, following the detonation of the No. 1 Turret magazine, corroborated by survey of the wreck. See Yamato's own TROM for DAR information, and footnote with details: http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm See USNTMJ data corroborating the above: http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200H-0745-0786%20Report%20S-06-2.pdf The tally of total bombs and torpedoes both ships received is just that, a tally, not the number it took to sink her. The subsequent hits simply accelerated her sinking. Yamato was already suffering from uncontrollable flooding after the 7th/8th torpedo hit. Please see Yamato's above TROM for reference. I can attach more references if I stop by my parents' place this weekend. Torpedoes are not built equally. The torpedo which struck the North Carolina was a 53.3 cm (21") Type 96 which contained 1,213 lbs. (550 kg) of Type 97 (Hexanite) explosive, yet did not cause serious damage nor extensive flooding, as documented in its Bureau of Ships report. The turret was not mechanically disabled, but rather ordered to be unused as a precaution, as the hit had caused a minor deformation of the framing for the powder room. In contrast, the torpedoes which struck Yamato were the 22.4" (56.9 cm) Mark 13 Mod 10, which contained 606 lbs. (275 kg) of TPX (Torpex) explosive. Pound for pound, Hexanite is approximately on par with TNT, whereas Torpex is approximately 50% more powerful than TNT, which the Type 96 compensated for with quantity. If you peruse Musashi and Yamato's TROM's you will see more serious flooding and listing details documented after most of their individual hits. North Carolina WDR: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-north-carolina-bb55-war-damage-report-no-61.html Type 96: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.php#53.3_cm_%2821%22%29_Type_96_%281936_but_actually_1941%29 Mark 13 Mod 10: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.php#22.4%22_%2856.9_cm%29_Mark_13

I beg to differ, as the Yamato-class also suffered from poor quality joint welds and plate quality, documented in both IJN records after Skate's torpedo hit on her that cracked and buckled her armor at the joints, as well as USNTMJ records. Metallurgical studies of Shinano's plates, along with IJN records, and the USN Proving Grounds test also revealed the brittleness of their plates, which would lead to extensive cracking after a hit. Both of these flaws were evident at the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea, when Yamato lost an entire plate which fell off from an AP bomb hit that detonated within the ship, and in combat reports of battle damage sustained by the Kongo-class as well. They simply compensated for some of this with sheer thickness, and further improvised plates behind the joints, although IJN designers acknowledged that the effectiveness of those modifications were in question, as Kongo apparently still sank from the same cracking and buckled joints from Sealion's torpedo, which led to uncontrollable flooding, even after her refit. USN warships, including Iowa, also extensively utilized Special Treatment Steel (STS) for internal bulkheads, a high-quality homogeneous steel, which served as both additional internal armor and structural steel. Only the USN (STS) and RN (Type D) had a steel like this, which sacrificed some hardness for ductility, although STS was of slightly higher quality than Type D, but both were still nearly as effective inch-for-inch as the best homogeneous armors in the world, USN Class B and RN NCA. Other nations did not develop a homogeneous steel that could serve in this capacity. US access to metals during the war also meant that the USN alone was able to use this lavishly within their ships, which was robust at containing splinter damage from penetrating hits. http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200H-0745-0786 Report S-06-2.pdf http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.php http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.php http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm http://www.combinedfleet.com/kongo.htm http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kongo01.html http://www.combinedfleet.com/eclipkong.html https://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/r/Armor.htm

The wreck of the USS Hornet has been discovered. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-hornet-wreckage-world-war-two-warship-discovered/ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/final-resting-place-of-uss-hornet-cv-8-located-in-the-south-pacific-300793649.html

In my WWII naval doctrine files, the only nation I had found that officially included fighter suppression of shipboard AA in their tactical doctrine was the USN.

If that's what you think, I rest my case. You can't even recognize the fallacy in your claim. Have a good night.

No, because statistically speaking, that just shows that if the same players who have access to the other Tier X ships had access to the Stalingrad, the average would drop drastically to levels below many of the other Tier X ships. What it does have is a marginally better performance in its intended role in CBs over Moskva. By that same note though, there are also plenty of other ships throughout the game that perform X role better than Y ship. And to claim that a ship is OP based on one game mode is also disingenuous. Again, from a scientific method and statistical analysis standpoint, you have to consider all the factors going into your numbers. It's misleading to compare two specific figures when the sample populations putting up those numbers are entirely different.

Three unicums from our clans with 40+, can you point out the OP ship?

Except it's not OP, as is the original argument. Look through the rest of the players in my clan with Stalingrads. They have plenty of other Tier X ships that they have higher average damage in. Are those ships even more OP then?

I was referring to your cherry-picking of players to compare. If the Stalingrad were definitively better and unbalanced in the general game, you would expect all the unicum players to perform better in it than the rest of their own Tier X ships, no? As for your question, yes, we would take Stalingrad when we can, but you are still better off taking a mix of ships rather than just leaning hard on Stalingrads. In addition, there aren't always Stalingrad players available, and we do just as well with Moskvas.

You cherry-picked one. The stats for practically all the others would disagree.

As was stated before, that figure is deceptively high due to the fact that the generally more experienced players had them for longer. I guarantee it will come down.

If you browse the Tier X performance of unicum players with Stalingrad, you'll see that for the vast majority, it's hardly their best ship, even after hundreds of games. For some of them, it's even their worst ship.

Just saw this in the news today and was curious what may come of this, if anything? FTC pledges loot crate investigation Since the legal definition of "gambling" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I doubt there will be any impact, although my entertainment law professor did reply that offering items that are no longer available for purchase is a legal grey area. Personally, I've enjoyed most of my purchases myself. Thoughts? Interested in what the community thinks.