Jump to content

Xechran

Members
  • Content count

    471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6781
  • Clan

    [WOLF6]

Community Reputation

110 Valued poster

About Xechran

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

294 profile views
  1. WGC setup/install hang

    Had an issue today where WGC tried updating the launcher in the midst of my computer crashing. Result is that I am unable to run the launcher or patch the game to the new version that was released today. Running WGC gives errror 193 and instructs to uninstall and reinstall. The uninstall process hangs, and downloading the setup exe and trying to run that also hangs. I have the report produced: Is this a situation where I need to manually clean the install, temp files, and registry? Seems so, wanted to double check and verify the default paths used to make sure I got everything before proceeding.
  2. Sigh. The command of the defense of Pearl Harbor was split between Army and Navy. Navy considered it the Army's job to protect them while in port. Army considered it the Navy's job to protect Hawaii from sea attack, including naval air strike. The army stacked its planes on the field because they were concerned with sabotage, as noted. There was no unified defense structure, no common chain of command, no plan in place as each force stuck to their own perceived areas of responsibility. Then there's the notion that the Navy "hastily" chopped a biplane down to size. Ok, first - the aircraft you're thinking of is the F4F Wildcat, not the F6F Hellcat. The XF4F-1 was put together in a design process starting in 1936, five years before the start of the war. The initial design was that of a biplane, but that was changed immediately in response to the F2A Brewster Buffalo. Development lasted until 1940 before the Navy would accept the F4F-3 model for service. Hardly "hasty".
  3. come now wg you can do better

    Who said anything about inspiring? I said they were analogous. Both in form and function. You want to argue for a different Grumman craft to be a better analogue, then be my guest. But you can't just append a new letter to the plane and throw it in. It would perform markedly worse than its land based variants. Its the nature of the beast. For what its worth, I think a navalized 109 was an awful idea because of its narrow undercarriage. But its what the Germans could manage.
  4. come now wg you can do better

    Slow your roll chief. The F8F is the closest, most comparable analogue you will get if you intend to compare any Grumman to a 190. You would only try to compare the Hellcat if you didn't know about the Bearcat. My assumption was that others were knowledgeable - so sorry. Since you didn't know about the basics of the Bear, let me fill in some more details. Of the F8F-1 /190 A: Wingspan 35ft / 34ft. Length 28ft / 29ft Weight (empty) 7,070lbs / 7,060lbs (takeoff) 9,600lbs / 9,735. Top speed 421mph / 408 mph. Heres some three view diagrams: The wing shape gave it slightlly more area and lower wing loading, at the cost of added drag. Made up for by the increased power plant. The FW-190D series beats the Bear in speed, even with lower power, because of its lower drag. The higher HP/LB and lower wing loading gives it better climb, but more stress in a turn. Sacrifices had to be made to get the performance they wanted out of it. You don't get to plant a 190 on the GZ just because it was a good land based fighter and call it a day. Sacrifices have to be made for navalizing, as they had to make for its closest analogue - the F8F. Here let me help some more, just in case I am again assuming too much knowledge on the part of others, adding a tail hook means strengthening the frame (adding weight). You'd need heavier landing gear, added weight and slower roll rates from adding mass off Center of Gravity. Skin materials would need to change and be thicker to stand up to salt spray. If you wanted enough planes to be combat effective, you would have to add detachable or folding wings, adding weight and complexity, retarding roll, climb, speed. etc. etc...
  5. come now wg you can do better

    Since the reference was to the FW-190 I assumed we were discussing the F8F, the most direct naval analogue. Call it if you wish, go look into it. Also you may be right about the .50s, I may have been thinking of the AN/M3. In which case the F8F-1 just gave up a pair of .50s flat out. For some reason I thought it was balanced out by the new equipment. edit: here - https://www.cafsocal.com/aircraft/grumman-f8f-2-bearcat/
  6. come now wg you can do better

    And had to make drastic compromises to achieve the performance they did. To reduce weight their folding wings were designed to break off in combat maneuvers rather than strengthen the hinge. Their armament was also reduced from 6 .50s, as had been common, to 4. They did get the upgraded m3s, which offset the reduction with higher volume of fire. It was comparable in size with the 190As, but had 700 more horsepower and a 4 bladed propeller. Compromises. Climb rate, turn rate, range etc. would all have been better on the same sketch without the need to navalize.
  7. come now wg you can do better

    Um, no. The FW-190 was a good fighter, but those performance figures come from being a lightweight plane that could never hold up to naval service. Navalized planes are considerably heavier to withstand harsh conditions that would destroy land based fighters. Can't just drop one in just because its "better".
  8. Montana - Upgrade slot 3

    Flatly no. BBs are not DPM machines like cruisers. If you are not constantly firing for the sake of firing itself, you are wasting the reload mod. Firing every time the weapons reload just means you are wasting shots into angled or maneuvering ships. BBs operate on alpha strikes - high damage one off salvos. USN dispersion mod plays into the BBs strength, better enabling you to eliminate targets earlier with more reliable alpha strikes. The accuracy mod helps you from the first salvo, the reload mod helps a little bit on each salvo. AA mod is only useful against CVs... which means only a subsection of the games you will play. Nor will not save you against a Hak or Taiho that knows his stuff.
  9. Ill just leave this here
  10. Haha! Sucks to be you, rest of us already have completed it. (?)
  11. US Heavy Cruiser

    I derped. From memory I thought she was proofed against 8" gunfire. She was proofed against 10" gunfire - but has no underwater protection to speak of.
  12. US Heavy Cruiser

    Lets go back a bit. Alaska is too stronk against T10 cruisers. Solution: Put her against Tier 5 cruisers.
  13. US Heavy Cruiser

    Except armor. Shes not a battlship or battlecruiser. She is a cruiser with battlship caliber guns. That is an direct analogue of the Graf Spee. Her displacement, armor, and gun caliber require putting her at T10.
  14. US Heavy Cruiser

    Except it doesn't. Wargamming already put a super cruiser at the top of a cruiser line and I called it out by name - Moskva. Putting Guam opposite that is not a leap or a stretch. Next is play style - as noted the DM is a carry on. It plays like an Atlanta. The logic works just fine -- the only thing that falls apart is your ability to label the line "CA" or "CL". Wah?
  15. US Heavy Cruiser

    You seem to be somewhat newer to this field, the current Cleveland has been nerfed to hell and back to make it fit into that slot. Its a shadow of what it was released as, and it was released in a nerfed form to make it fit to start with. They planned to put her at T8 and revert those nerfs. You can't use the ships current performance to argue against that plan.
×