Jump to content

sulghunter331

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    882
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7387
  • Clan

    [HCH]

Community Reputation

278 Excellent

3 Followers

About sulghunter331

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Insignia
    [HCH]

Recent Profile Visitors

891 profile views
  1. sulghunter331

    16-inch AP vs cruisers

    Because auto-bounce mechanics. As much as it would make sense for hardened steel shells weighing as much as a VW Beetle going at mach 2~3 to punch through any cruiser armor at nearly every angle, the cruiser players would raise such a [edited]-fest, that they'd make the battleship players complaining about DD stealth torpedoes look like grown adults.
  2. sulghunter331

    Battlecruiser - Tier and class determination?

    Perhaps if the devs ever get around to creating a second BB line for either the USN or the IJN, maybe they can also throw in a "Large Cruiser" line as well. The second line could be akin to the second IJN DD line, starting off at tier 6, ending at tier 10. The Large Cruisers could be used as a transition between the cruisers to battlecruisers, which may then in turn transition to fast battleships. I only have a layman's knowledge of naval history, just reading in my spare time, but if my memory is correct, the evolution of warships can be considered as thus, at least for the heavy capital ships: Ships-of-the-line (HMS Victory) => Ironclads => Pre-dreadnought battleship => Dreadnought battleship => Super dreadnought For the lighter ships meant to either serve as a screen for the capital ships or to operate independently from the main fleet (cruising), it's a little more tricky. Back then, armor sufficient to stop the guns of the time was just too heavy to equip a ship meant to move quickly enough to be an effective cruiser. Thus two lines branched off, the armored cruiser, and protected cruisers. The armored cruiser had armor, fire-power, and costs approaching contemporary battleships, while having a modicum of speed on those battleships. They were meant to be a fast unit in a fleet engagement that would support the main battle line, whilst attempting to out-maneuver the enemy's battle line. Battlecruisers were Lord Fisher's idea, that by sacrificing armor, an armored cruiser can gain a significant advantage in speed over any battleship of the time, while also having the speed to run down lighter cruisers. This would, in his theory, dictate the range of the engagement, hopefully keeping the enemy out of the range of his guns, while keeping said enemy in the effective range of your guns. The armor was sacrificed because the technology of the time could not easily afford the speed Fisher wanted, while also having heavy guns AND armor, so armor was thus sacrificed to keep the ships at a more reasonable cost. When technology finally caught up, around the time after WW1, ships could finally be built that had cruiser levels of speed, while keeping heavy guns AND armor, with Hood and Kongo being early examples, culminating in the Iowa class. To satisfy a navy's need for lighter, fast units that could "cruise" independently of the fleet, early frigate designs were simply up-armored and sent out. These early armored cruisers fared poorly, as they either were too slow under the extra armor, or didn't really have enough armor to be useful. It wasn't until protected cruisers came around that lighter cruiser units had useful levels of protection, having just an armored deck and the coal bunkers protecting engines and ammunition. When face-hardened steel armor came around, such as Krupp or Harvey steel, and oil-fired boilers became more common that cruisers could afford to have armored sides, in addition to the armored deck. These cruisers in turn split off again, one to the "light cruisers", the other to "heavy cruisers". These two terms didn't become a real definition until the Washington and London Naval treaties. By then, the difference was just gun caliber (6.1" and 8" respectively) as tonnage was the same for both. When the treaties expired, the designs for both grew in tonnage, with designs such as Cleveland in comparison to Omaha for light cruisers, while heavy cruiser designs grew to the point that we begin to recognize as "large cruisers". Designs such as Alaska and B-65 were meant ships to thoroughly counter the contemporary heavy cruisers, Graf Spee and Mogami for Alaska as an example. To do this, heavy cruiser designs of the time were simply made bigger than the enemy's heavy cruiser, but not so big that they became as expensive as the battleships. Frigates (like Constitution) => Ironclad frigate (HMS Warrior) => Armored cruiser => Battlecruiser => Fast battleship => Protected cruiser => Light cruiser => Heavy cruiser => Large cruiser
  3. sulghunter331

    USS Charleston vs the USS St. Louis

    Any premium below tier 6 is more of a collector's item/history nerd bait than an effective combat unit.
  4. Now knowing that the CV rework is well on its way to being released in the future, I think I will have a little fun with a simple prediction. Prediction: The very first forum thread regarding CVs, post rework update, will be someone [edited] about how CVs can drop torps, flood someone, wait out their repairs, and then flood them again with another set.
  5. sulghunter331

    Is the Kronshtadt Worth the gold for 150K EXP?

    Thanks for the advice, I was just worried that I may not have the time, but I think I may be able to manage it in a month. I already have the Musashi, and I thoroughly enjoy her.
  6. As it says on the tin, wondering whether I should spend the simoleons for the gold to convert 150K exp. Heard that the Kron's going the way of the Mighty Mo, and I am worried that I may not have the time to grind out the free exp for her normally.
  7. sulghunter331

    Well..Wikipedia dun [edited] up!

    I've read a lot of history books, over many subjects and eras, some books covered the same thing, with different perspectives. If I managed to get one thing, is that the reality of it is that no one was a paragon, no one was a saint. They were all simply human, for all the good, and bad that entails in regards to their actions. That is why I don't look to history as something to romanticize.
  8. I thought the little tidbit in my signature would have given it away.
  9. Certainly more than I have ever achieved, in a cruiser or any other type of ship. Well done.
  10. sulghunter331

    Well..Wikipedia dun [edited] up!

    That is certainly a true statement. So many have emotional ties to historical events that it can be a very delicate issue at the best of times. I suppose that the best that one could hope for is to try to show history in its entirety.
  11. sulghunter331

    The BBoy who cried OP

    Try smoke screens for the last one.
  12. sulghunter331

    Well..Wikipedia dun [edited] up!

    I apologize. Your question was oddly worded, and seemed like you were only expressing that mentioning Nagato on the same day of the Attack on Pearl Harbor was a mistake. As for my opinion, I feel that it is of little consequence whether or not Nagato was mentioned on that particular day.
  13. sulghunter331

    Well..Wikipedia dun [edited] up!

    I never said that the Civil War was not a part of history. I never said anything about the statues celebrating anything. What I did say, is that what ever happens, the history of our societies will not change, no matter how hard you try to make it into something else. What we can, however, is change how we view it, how we think and react about history. What I did say, is that statues for ideals or beliefs are a different matter to statues representing history. You have taken this as some sort of code (or perhaps as some bell), and taken it to mean that I am some sort of radical who believes in historical revisionism. I meant that we cannot use the same standards for both categories of statues. You know what else is a part of history? Jim Crow. The Civil Rights Movement. The era when a good number of the statues in question were erected. An era where black people were legally treated as second class citizens. Do not cherry pick history as if it were the Bible. History should be treated as a guide, something to look back upon, to draw wisdom from in order to guide us through the present and into the future. "I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. " - Robert E. Lee. As for the ideals, just what exactly do you think the Confederate States of America fought for? Just what exactly do you think those states held as ideals? Honestly, I think it it's far more disgusting that we are elevating what are essentially traitors to our country to the same status as men who have fought and died for the country in its wars.
  14. sulghunter331

    Well..Wikipedia dun [edited] up!

    Humble statues at cemeteries to honor the dead are perfectly fine. I have no problem if the statues are representing history. That is to say, if they were erected to mark some event or era in history, they are fine. If the statues are instead erected to represent ideals, or beliefs, then that is another matter entirely. Statues erected long after the era and events they were meant to represent, during a back-drop of social turmoil and ethnic inequity, they have tenuous claims to being icons of the fore-mentioned history.
×