Jump to content

AkXb70

Members
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6566
  • Clan

    [AGBSL]

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About AkXb70

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. They say that, but Iowa's deck count's the STS, and many other designs have non-armor steel thicknesses included. Most armor decks were some lamination, but in game they are treated as a single thickness.
  2. I wasn't debating tier there, but the 14/45's are also used on Arizona and it does just fine. It has two more, yes, but also a terrible reload speed. In reality though, the NY's 14's weren't as upgraded as the NV's. Nevada's shells had a better ballistic coefficient due to a longer windscreen that the NY's hoists couldn't accept and she could elevate her main guns to 30* rather than 15*. (From NavWeaps) The Nevada (BB-36) and Pennsylvania (BB-38) battleship classes were further upgraded during the 1930s to increase their maximum turret elevations to 30 degrees. These ships were also now supplied with a heavier AP projectile and by 1942 with a HC projectile. The enlarged propellant charges allowed the heavier AP shell to be used without significant muzzle velocity losses. USS New York (BB-34) and USS Texas (BB-35) were not modernized and their existing shell hoists could not handle the new, longer AP and HC projectiles, so modified versions with shorter windshields were produced for these ships. Nevada isn't a sidegrade to NY. She's better. Could NY go down to T4 and NV be placed at T5? Sure.
  3. Regardless of tier, Nevada's citadel protection is significantly better than New York's . Not only is the belt thicker (13.5" vs 12" or less depending on the location), there's a protected deck behind it, and the transverse bulkhead is also stronger.
  4. Fair enough. :) I still don't think they'd give us the 5"/38 at T5, unfortunately Oddly though, I just checked the NM's armor profile, and she's missing 10mm on the barbettes at least, not to mention the 8" section of the belt is much larger than it should be. Arizona at least has the correct barbette thickness.
  5. Just looking at it from WG's perspective. I agree NY is a bad T5, but NV is (for game purposes) a NM with two less (slightly lower velocity) guns. NM already is saddled with a punitive reload and poor accuracy.
  6. I'd much prefer a Nevada at T6 with a 30sec reload and the 5/38 post PH refit. The armor profile (essentially the same as the New Mex/Arizona) and guns would likely be too far ahead of any of the other T5's and the quality of life nerfs would suck. Also, the 5"/38's need unnerffed. Their ROF is terrible. Since Cleveland is heading to T8, there's no reason for them to suck so bad.
  7. They've also done it in WOWS for the JP DD split, but devs have mentioned they don't think it was a good idea.
  8. I think its a WG thing that they don't like to do partial line ends (it has to finish at T10 or its a no-go)
  9. Some realistic alternate tier 10's could be either of these: BB1938 (I) - An Iowa with a 14.75" belt, 27kts, and 9x18" guns Tillman (70,000 ton version) - 18" belt, 26.5kts, and 12x16" guns (would likely need a refit with torpedo blisters and DP secondaries)
  10. I very much like this idea for John Doe and future commanders if we can't have truly historical names. Perhaps keep the special commander enhancements in line with the type(s) of ships the commander historically favored?
  11. Interesting if this is indeed due to the inclined internal belt depth. Underwater hits like this are the reason the internal belts of Yamato, SD, and IA all have a thinner lower portion that extends to the bottom of the ship. You can even see the perceived need for it on the Montana designs (even though they have an external belt, it is still sloped inwards which reduces effective height) where the designers added an additional internal belt on the TDS bulkhead itself. As someone else mentioned, I'd be interested to see if this happens on Nelson too, since she also has a very shallow internal belt. It may not be apparent there, however, since Nelson's citadel is so high anyways with no protected deck behind it.
  12. Or, 3. Remove all citadels. It would require a lot more general game balancing, but would help cruisers too.
  13. I was under the impression that normalization was similar to WOT's use in that it reduces the effective angle of the shell when calculating penetration (at the initial strike, not after). For example: A shell with 6* of normalization coming in at 45* against a flat plate would only have to penetrate at an equivalent 39*. This overall makes angled armor and angling in general worse.
  14. It's sad that it seems the 5"/38 is a downgrade in the game from the 5"/25 in the anti-surface role.
  15. I've noticed that Izumo's belt armor texture doesn't match her armor model. From the texture, it would appear that the belt would stop before turret 1 and probably angle in to the center, similar to Yamato's, rather than squared off at the end.
×