Jump to content

Lampshade_M1A2

Members
  • Content Сount

    3,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6818
  • Clan

    [LEGIO]

Community Reputation

1,120 Superb

1 Follower

About Lampshade_M1A2

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 10/09/1989
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,198 profile views
  1. Lampshade_M1A2

    Who are the real AA ships?

    Now that DFAA is less useful than it used to be is Minotaur king of AAA of is it still Worcester?
  2. Lampshade_M1A2

    Help! How Does Overpen Machanic Work?

    Ships are filled with nothing in WoWS so don't expect all of that machinery that 11" shell might be hitting in reality to change anything.
  3. Lampshade_M1A2

    Puerto Rico needs a nerf

    Nerf? It needs a buff. The main battery should have the same reload and accuracy as Alaska. A cruiser with a 10" armor belt should be somewhat tanky so why cry for a nerf? It lacks agility and concealment smaller cruisers tend to have.
  4. Lampshade_M1A2

    182 hits to sink a Kremlin?

    It was bow-on so according to WG logic a sheet of tin foil with some angle will easily defeat 260 lb AP shells. Maybe it would have been better to stick with HE?
  5. Lampshade_M1A2

    Gorizia - just don't

    One of the better armored heavy cruiser designs that was actually completed yet the thing explodes if you look at it funny. So far I haven't been very impressed with it.
  6. Lampshade_M1A2

    Puerto Rico

    I don't own one but it seems to me that PR could use an improvement to the main battery. What's the point of having three more guns than the Alaska if they are both less accurate and have a slower rate of fire?
  7. Lampshade_M1A2

    Why bother with Puerto Rico?

    Then you're living in a fantasy if you think a light tank should do as much damage as a heavy one or a DD should on average do as much as a BB. The facts of the machinery in question dictate that. Just admit you want DDs to be overpowered.
  8. Lampshade_M1A2

    Why bother with Puerto Rico?

    Of course the team game is more involved than a simple car race and difference ships, like different cars, excel at different things. Your entire argument is based around what? DDs not doing as much damage as BBs? That's a foolish expectation. Would you expect a light tank to match a heavy one for damage?
  9. Lampshade_M1A2

    Why bother with Puerto Rico?

    When the PR being underpowered is supposedly a result of BBs being overpowered you're living in delusional territory.
  10. Lampshade_M1A2

    Why bother with Puerto Rico?

    Do you ever tire of blaming BBs for everything?
  11. Lampshade_M1A2

    Viribus Unitis: the forgotten controversy

    Never belonged at T5. The Wyoming class for design purposes a superior battleship and that was only placed at T4.
  12. Lampshade_M1A2

    Staliniumgrad To Be Or Not To Be

    Why are you so confrontational? Go back and look at what I said, I never said the Zao was real, it's based on a supposed set of requirements for one of the unrealized Japanese naval armament bills. Yet the design WG put together is implausible for all the reasons I mentioned. Had PR been built we can assume Alaska and Guam were never completed as they were and were instead members of the same class as PR. The Montana class was delayed due to the decision to focus on the production of other capital ships but had they been started on the original schedule the first ships would be completed in 1945. It doesn't take a year or more to go from launching to commissioning in wartime under normal circumstances.
  13. Lampshade_M1A2

    Staliniumgrad To Be Or Not To Be

    No the Zao is not similar, the guns are for all intents and purposes fictional with unrealistic ballistics. The cruiser itself does feature the usual Japanese design preference for catapults and floatplanes carried midship, the torpedoes armament is poorly positioned, it is just an all-around mess of a design based on the most basic set of specifications (primarily just 12x 8" guns) which the Japanese wanted for a new cruiser. The big issue with the Stalingrads that I see is that they would have been completed starting in 1954-55 or so. That's a whole decade after when the first of the Montanas would have been been in service. In the unlikely event that the USN decided they wanted a ship like PR (which would have had such cost and crew requirements where it would make a lot more sense to build a fast battleship instead) it would have also been ready 1945-46. So basically you have the pinnacle of Soviet capital shipbuilding in 1955 but you don't see the sort of improvements the USN could have had if they were still building fast battleships or battlecruisers at that time.
  14. Lampshade_M1A2

    Manual Fire Control for Secondaries Suggestion

    Secondaries need an overhaul, it's that simple. Though it seems WG would rather focus on making events with absurd requirements or $200 price tags.
  15. No way the Soviet designers would invest all of the extra weight needed to move a 18" gun turret weighting somewhere around 3,000 tons at 6 degrees per second. That's weight and volume that can be better used elsewhere. The fact that the Italians wanted a 15" gun turret to move that fast is just the Italians being weird.
×