Lampshade_M1A2

Isn't that what Wikipedia is? Ripping off other people's research for their own?

Which is complete nonsense on WG's part.

"Super-Montana" with 12x 18" guns and 20x 6" DP secondaries please. Oh and give all 18" and 18.1" guns the same overmatch capability.

A well designed 18" shell has more than enough penetration for the job. Besides having 3 fewer barrels the 20" guns would have a lower rate of fire individually. I suppose it's the same debate when comparing other battleship calibers (number of guns versus caliber) but when you're down to 6 guns on a 70,000 ton battleship it ought to make you reconsider some things.

The 18" guns on the Conqueror are junk. They can't even overmatch the same amount of armor as the Yamato's guns which is [edited]. The 12x 16.5" gun option is better.

I fail to see why the Japanese would have thought 6x 20" guns are better than 9x 18". In practice you won't be able to take advantage of the extra range.

They're two different classes of battlecrusier. Stalingrad was newer and was to be faster, use more powerful 12" guns, 5.1" secondaries, and newer AAA.

It's balanced comrades! Trust us. But seriously give us random playing plebs a path to get it. Flint and Black are both members of classes of which you can obtain other ships by money or regular progression. Stalingrad is unique. Besides the ship belongs to the people. It wouldn't be in the spirit of the USSR to deny it to the masses.

Or they could just unnerf poor Alsace instead...

And how much steel did you get from those crates?

I agree with this guy. Nerf the reload booster or get rid of it and give it good secondaries instead and I'll buy it.

I do.

I had you voted a thumbs up until you got to the part where you WHINED about DDs not having the same average damage and survival as BBs then I gave you thumbs down. A sad ending indeed. The truth is that CVs should be somewhat "OP" as is judged by the masses. Such was the power of the aircraft carrier in WWII. The disappointment over your threat makes me want to drink even more.

Very interesting article WG. Thank you for that. I have a few questions though. Where did you get the information about the ship's projected performance characteristics being too optimistic? I'd be interested to know in the USN's later analysis of this design. I hadn't read about the resulting reduction in belt armor from 7.5" to 6" before. Also you make a pretty big deal about the quad torpedo launchers and the torpedo reloads facilitated for them. So why wasn't this included on the Buffalo in the game? Not that I particularly miss the lousy USN torpedoes, I'd have personally preferred the extra armor instead. That chart of new US cruiser designs 1940-41 shows two designs, Scheme 1 and 2, for what look to be new light cruisers. Yet the main armament of Scheme 2 isn't identified. What was it?

Don't you love that feeling of taking the secondary and AA survivability upgrade only to have British HE spam knock out most of it with a single salvo?