• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

110 Valued poster

About Xechran

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Xechran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Portal profile Xechran

Recent Profile Visitors

250 profile views
  1. 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".
  2. 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.
  3. 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...
  4. 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/
  5. 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.
  6. 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".
  7. 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.
  8. Ill just leave this here
  9. Haha! Sucks to be you, rest of us already have completed it. (?)
  10. 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.
  11. Lets go back a bit. Alaska is too stronk against T10 cruisers. Solution: Put her against Tier 5 cruisers.
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. Alaska doesn't have the armor to play like Scharnhorst, as you noted. She is not a BB. She is, at best, a cruiser like Graf Spee. Which they did implement as a cruiser. That gives us precedent. But she could not reasonably be put at the end of the CL line. What to do? Simple. Move Des Moines to the top of the CL line and put Alaska at the end of the CA line. Alaska/Guam versus Moskva. This keeps like playstyles together and gets the ships in game.