Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About AkXb70

  • Rank
  • Insignia
  1. I'm not happy with it either. I've completed it before, but it was more work with no real rewarding feeling. I really don't think that bots that outnumber us should also receive commander skills and flags...
  2. US BBs

    Tall citadels are a terrible tradeoff and make maneuvering and closing distance very dangerous. Taking away maneuvering options would make US BB's less interesting, not more interesting.
  3. US BBs

    The main guns are fine. The 5"/38's need their proper ROF and shells though. Leaving them short range shouldn't affect balance really.
  4. I'm pretty sure the CO only had below water tubes mounted forward of turret 1, which would have been removed in the 30's refit as SgtBeltfed mentioned. You can see them here on Washington (which was never completed).
  5. Battleship gun accuracy

    A. The battle report stating 107 rounds fired at Kirishima is wrong, but the hits are correct? I'm the one ignoring things? B. Radar was having issues and fire was corrected by visual.
  6. Battleship gun accuracy

    Incorrect: 107 is more than 75. Lets assume for the moment though, that 40 rounds did hit Kirishima. The secondary battery did not fire on her until after several salvos were fired by the main battery which gave the secondary director known range and bearing. The secondary battery did not have to waste any shots. That gives no comparison of mechanical capabilities of the gun since fire control errors were mostly eliminated for the secondary fire. IF you wanted to make the point that since smaller caliber guns fire faster, and therefore can react to target range and bearing information quicker to correct for fire control errors, and that since more rounds can be put on target quicker, the ratio of ranging shots to hits can be improved, I can agree on that point. Stating mechanical accuracy of the mounts are worse because the projectile is bigger is nonsense though. There are no reasons for that to be inherently true.
  7. Battleship gun accuracy

    Did you actually...ya know...read the damage analysis in the link I posted? There are explanations for the incorrect number of hits claimed during the battle. There is even a piece in there about confirming some of the underwater hits by 16" shell since they've found the wreck. Hits claimed is not hits confirmed.
  8. Battleship gun accuracy

    Take a look at the damage analysis posted above. Again, for your benefit: http://navweaps.com/index_lundgren/kirishimaDamageAnalysis.php
  9. Battleship gun accuracy

    17 vs 20... not sure how it would be possible to have MUCH more hits at every range when the total number is still less.
  10. Battleship gun accuracy

    Washington to Kirishima: http://navweaps.com/index_lundgren/bbActionGuadalcanal.php http://navweaps.com/index_lundgren/kirishimaDamageAnalysis.php 20 hits out of 75 rounds fired would be 26.7% accuracy. Not bad for maneuvering ships at night. Secondary hits look really bad, but not all 227 rounds were fired at Kirishima.
  11. Battleship gun accuracy

    lol...no A semi-auto handgun and a naval rifle are not constructed the same, but just to humor you, slide to frame clearances for reliability have nothing to do with caliber. A 9mm or .38 Super 1911 constructed to the same spec would have the same clearances as a .45 model. Additionally slide to frame fitment (the clearances you're referring to that allow a pistol to function better in harsh environments) has nothing to do with accuracy in a 1911. Barrel bushing fitment and consistent lockup (barrel to slide lug interface) are all that's important. Also, not sure if you're aware of this, but projectiles for small arms are oversized in comparison to the bore. There are NO clearances between the projectile and the bore. In your example, a .45 ACP cartridge is nominally .451-.4515", while the bore of the gun is .445" with groves of .450-.451". As another poster mentioned, naval projectiles use a driving band to interface with rifling, also eliminating any free 'clearances'.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.