John_McCarthy1

So what is the US cruiser in the picture here on the portal? It's got early US heavy cruiser turrets, they're two aft turrets, but it's not Pensacola because they're both twin turrets, if it was the #3 turret should be a triple. looking in game at Pensacola, it really looks like Pensacola, so unless you guys are cooking up a tier V premium version of Pensacola with 8 guns instead of 10 the artist who made the image for the article made a mistake.

They could also name it Hawaii or maybe even Panama considering the US still owned the Canal at back then.

The new US battleships are very disappointing to me for more than one reason. The US Battleship line split is just that, a split instead of a 2nd tech tree branch. This leaves out at least 3-4 real ships that could've been in the branch, but they aren't. Despite there being many US BB designs to pull from for a line, both real steel and proposed (I remember people mentioning back in Alpha/Beta there was enough US BBs for 3 full lines, I guess that fact has been dropped and/or ignored), the tier VIII Kansas and the tier IX Minnesota are both based off the same design, the 1920s South Dakota class, which for some reason neither use the name South Dakota despite the name not existing in game yet. Among the other historical inaccuracies for the Tier VIII and IX, the Tier X Vermont which is somewhat based off Tillman I is kit-bashed past the point of making any reasonable sense. The tier VII Florida has French style quads (which are really just two doubles in the same turret) instead of KGV style 4-gun turrets without any precedent for the US to use the French style quads. This game also once again misses the opportunity to give US ships a Great White Fleet premium camo. This line is is almost if not more poorly handled than the RN CAs were. Overall with how half baked this line split is I'd honestly rather wait another year to get a real and well done 2nd US BB line. In respect to the video, I find it weird that the video talks about Senator Tillman, and Maximum battleships so much when only Vermont is a kit-bashed "inspired by" version of Tillman I, whereas Kansas and Minnesota are both based off the South Dakota 1920s with the wrong guns. on a more light hearted and funny note, at 0:13 the narrator says "US Senator Benjin Tillman" instead of Benjamin Tillman.

The new US battleships are very disappointing to me for more than one reason. The US Battleship line split is just that, a split instead of a 2nd tech tree branch. This leaves out at least 3-4 real ships that could've been in the branch, but they aren't. Despite there being many US BB designs to pull from for a line, both real steel and proposed (I remember people mentioning back in Alpha/Beta there was enough US BBs for 3 full lines, I guess that fact has been dropped and/or ignored), the tier VIII Kansas and the tier IX Minnesota are based off the same design the 1920s South Dakota class, which for some reason neither use the name South Dakota despite the name not existing in game yet. Among other historical inaccuracies for the Tier VIII and IX, the Tier X Vermont which is somewhat based off Tillman I is kit-based past the point of making any reasonable sense. The tier VII Florida has French style quads (which are really just two doubles in the same turret) instead of KGV style 4-gun turrets without any precedent for the US to use the French style quads. This game also once again misses the opportunity to give US ships a Great White Fleet premium camo. This line is is almost if not more poorly handled than the RN CAs were. Overall with how half baked this line split is I'd honestly rather wait another year to get a real and well done 2nd US BB line.

The new US battleships are very disappointing to me for more than one reason. The US Battleship line split is just that, a split instead of a 2nd tech tree branch. This leaves out at least 3-4 real ships that could've been in the branch, but they aren't. Despite there being many US BB designs to pull from for a line, both real steel and proposed (I remember people mentioning back in Alpha/Beta there was enough US BBs for 3 full lines, I guess that fact has been dropped and/or ignored), the tier VIII Kansas and the tier IX Minnesota are based off the same design the 1920s South Dakota class, which for some reason neither use the name South Dakota despite the name not existing in game yet. Among other historical inaccuracies for the Tier VIII and IX, the Tier X Vermont which is somewhat based off Tillman I is kit-based past the point of making any reasonable sense. The tier VII Florida has French style quads (which are really just two doubles in the same turret) instead of KGV style 4-gun turrets without any precedent for the US to use the French style quads. This game also once again misses the opportunity to give US ships a Great White Fleet premium camo. This line is is almost if not more poorly handled than the RN CAs were. Overall with how half baked this line split is I'd honestly rather wait another year to get a real and well done 2nd US BB line.

I got the answer, The Alaska class ships are not Battlecruisers (CC), they are Large Cruisers (CB). I honestly think calling them Battlecruisers is kinda an insult to the ships, because they'd be one of if not the most [edited] battlecruisers design wise. if you compare the Alaska to battleships built at/around the same time, the Alaska sacrifices both firepower and protection for no significant gain in speed. The Alaska would also be unable to perform some of the tasks set out for a battlecruiser to perform.

1. The realization of this fact annoys me 2. my assumption of why they haven't made up a russian ship is probably because they rightly fear the possible backlash especially if the fantasy ship turned out to be OP

I don't understand how someone could possible look at the Tillman designs and think they'd be ok for a tech tree or a premium ship, let alone a tier IX if any of the Tillmans make it into the game they'd have to come in as a boss ship in during a PVE mission/campaign

I think you might be mixing things up. The Northampton class, just like the Portland and Pensacola class ships were not designed as Light Cruisers in the way you are thinking. they were never designed to have 6" guns, the reason why they were originally classes as light cruisers was because they were not Armored Cruisers. they were redesignated as heavy cruisers in 1931 because of the London Naval treaty changing the definitions of designations and defining a CL as a cruiser with guns no larger than 155mm (6.1 inches) and defining a CA (which then became the hull classification for Heavy Cruiser, instead of Armored Cruiser) as a cruiser with guns no larger than 203mm (8 inches).

when you become the torpedo

I too Love American stuff and think it's the best, however you're wrong on some stuff here as although America is the best other countries aren't terrible and shouldn't be discounted as such: 1. first part of this is wrong, the A6M was min-maxed for superiority in Dogfights, had 2 7.7s and 2 20mm which isn't a lackluster armament so in the beginning of the war it stomped US counterpart aircraft. Although I do agree on the fact that the .50s on US aircraft were pretty good 2. the reason US airmen switched over to Boom and Zoom tactics is because early on they found they were loosing handily at the super maneuverable A6M Zero whose pilots had more training from fighting the Chinese over Manchuria 3. with the exception of a 1 off prototype the P-51 did not operate off of Aircraft carriers during World war II is was an Army air force aircraft which required longer airfields for landing and take offs