Lampshade_M1A2

The cult of CC fanboism is alive and well, it shouldn't be necessary to point out names if you pay even the slightest bit of attention to what goes on around here.

Nice destroyer persecution complex you have going there.

Really Zao shouldn't have had enhanced accuracy over other cruisers in the first place but the solution isn't to buff them all to the same level. Typical WG. Traverse rate buff is fine. Now how about fixing up some of the weak links in the USN cruiser tree? I expect to hear crickets from WG on that.

Where is the proof of this? For the USN 16" guns at least the penetration curves don't suggest this nor do the admittedly rare occasions where 16" AP shells were hitting enemy ships. Yes there were many instances were immunity zones didn't matter because the combat was so close. That doesn't negate the importance the concept however. Of course there is a lot of important stuff not protected by the belt, but hits to the machinery or magazines will leave you dead in the water or sunk so protecting those are obviously a priority. If you lose fire control radar or something similarly vital it's still a huge problem but you're not necessary doomed. You can still maneuver and retreat, hopefully fighting again another day. You bring up instances where ships were left "dead in the water" yet still managed to escape but there were example where they weren't so lucky. Bismarck was doomed by a lucky torpedo and not gunfire but the end result was the same. Scharnhorst was doomed either by a lucky 14" hit in the engineering spaces or mechanical failure but either way her fate was sealed then and there. The fact that Kirishima was able to limp away to be abandoned and capsize later (not scuttled, it was determined the ship could not be saved) is a showcase of the confusing tactical scenario Washington and South Dakota faced. All of Bismarck's main and secondary batteries were knocked out which was enabled Rodney and King George V to close the range and turn the Bismarck into a flaming wreck. Her superstructure undoubtedly took some hits but wasn't so thoroughly devastated at long range, that was after the Bismarck lost the ability to fight back. In the same scenario do you really think a South Dakota or Iowa class battleship wouldn't have been *at least* equally effective at turning Bismarck into a floating scrap heap as Rodney or King George V were? The BL 15" Mark II was never even put to sea, maybe you referring to the Mark II *turret* on the Hood? I'm seeing a lot of insistence that 15" guns were so much more accurate and far more potent than 16" guns but very little proof. Truth is that most Americans would probably claim the 16"/50 Mark 7 was the most accurate large caliber naval gun put to sea, while the Japanese and Japanophiles would claim the Yamato's 18" were the most accurate and the Germans and Italians would likely claim their respective 15" guns as holders of that title. The US 16" guns simply did not see as much use in ship to ship engagements as the BL 15"/42 Mark I during the war. Yet their record of service all the way out to 1991 proves their effectiveness. And you really think any of this can be attributed to a lack of precision versus just the limited action against surface ships the US 16" guns saw during the war? What proof do you have that the 16" shellfire from Rodney did far less damage than the 14" guns of King George V? By the accounts I've read the Rodney's gunnery that day was outstanding and many attribute those shells as knocking out the front two 15" turrets of Bismarck. Neither ships of the Nagato class had illustrious careers but the performance of the Japanese 14" gun battleships and battlecruisers wasn't all that much more impressive. Yamato and Musashi didn't get much done either for that matter. Washington opened fire at close range, that doesn't mean she couldn't hit the target at longer ranges. Hell, the RN battleships at Matapan opened fire at an even closer range during the evening engagement. Kirishima limped away with damage to the machinery, the steering jammed, the frontal turrets destroyed, the rear turrets jammed, a whole lot of the crew killed, and flooding occurring below the waterline. Had the tactical situation been better for the US battleships she would have been finished off then and there but South Dakota was essentially blind, the US destroyers had withdrawn after losses, and multiple Japanese contacts were still out there. Your argument is that it took too many salvos for Massachusetts to disable Jean Bart's operational turret? Jean Bart might have on the harbor floor if her 6" magazine was stocked. Massachusetts also switched targets multiple times throughout the battle, the crew was engaging shore batteries and other ships.' You say 14" and 15" ships had more kills but there were a lot more of them. The Royal Navy started the war with 13 capital ships armed with 15" guns and only ever had 2 with 16" guns. The Royal Navy did most of the job of beating up the German and Italian surface fleet. Meanwhile in the Pacific the better part of the US battleship fleet was out of commission at the start of hostilities in that theater and by the time all of the South Dakotas and Iowas were in action carrier aviation was sinking anything with a rising sun flag. Your entire assessment of 16" guns versus 14" or 15" is based on 20/20 hindsight of knowing how the war actually went. If you knew all of the battles would occur in exactly the same way you could argue that a dozen 14"/50 caliber guns would have been better than nine 16" ones on the US battleships. Yet those who designed these ships didn't have the luxury of a crystal ball. As for the claims that 16" caliber guns in general were imprecise or inaccurate I'm still not seeing any proof. As for the Iowas not being good ships there post-war careers is evidence of the opposite. How long did your beloved Vanguard serve in comparison? I'd imagine you'd criticize the Iowas using many of the same metrics that you say there is too much focus on. Only having an armored belt 12.2" inches thick for example. What is this 14" gun with better deck penetration than the 16"/50 firing the 2,700 lb Mark 8? Again there is a lot of 20/20 hindsight analysis here. Yet what if things were a bit different and there were some more "traditional" battleship engagements where zones of immunity come into play? As to your final point it seems the USN did quite a good job analyzing all of those details about their 16" guns. Their preference for more curved trajectories actually helped limit wear and tear. Both the RN and USN did an excellent job with such logistical concerns unlike the Soviets whose high performance 5.1" AAA would have worn out way too quickly in reality.

You say exploit but how is that an exploit? It's fun and should have been in the game from the start, surely one could balance around it. Hell the mobile WoWS does it somehow.

I would be interested in seeing what a Des Moine or Baltimore class CA could to Schleswig Holstein at long range with plunging shellfire.

Maybe once Boise and Helena get a rate of fire buff.

As I say whenever somebody makes this point about them being automatic: Give me the option to take full manual control of them.

Of course the admirals like bigger guns, on the other hand they are not entirely immune to prioritizing on other aspects of ship design. Sometimes a preference for more guns versus bigger ones won out for example. Moving on I am failing to see any evidence that precise 16" guns or larger were not technically feasible for that time, it seems real world performance can thoroughly disprove that. Your entire argument seems to rest on the point that the BL 15"/42 Mark I saw more combat action and scored more hits. Of course it was in service for longer and equipped a total of 14 Royal Navy capital ships (not counting Courageous and Glorious) during its service life. All but one of those ships happened to be in service well before the start of WW2. The Royal Navy was also in the fight well before the American military joined the conflict and during the earlier part of this conflict carrier aviation had not yet proven as decisive, the Germans were willing to risk their major surface combatants, and the Italians were actually leaving port on occasion looking for a fight. So in other words there were more opportunities for battleships to be shooting at other ships than later in the war. At point blank range what you say about the 14"/50 being able to penetrate anything the 16"/45 and 16"/50 could is pretty much true but in reality the vital areas of battleships had immunity zones that were quite larger against 14" guns than they were against 16" ones. You could make a good argument that given the typical ranges of surface combat during the war, more 14" guns would have been a better choice than fewer 16" guns. Yet that is not the point you are arguing, instead you are claiming that it wasn't possible to build 16" guns or larger that were precise which is a claim I find very doubtful considering the successful performance of many 16" guns. You make a point about optimization but the USN did a great job optimizing the 16" gun and getting the performance they wanted from it. The Mark 6 and 7 compared to earlier production are proof of that. They were able to produce as many of these guns as they needed and they proved to be excellent weapons. Most sources will agree that the Iowa's design speed was either 32.5 or 33 knots. In "real world" conditions loaded down with extra weight, accounting for weather and bottom fouling their maximum speed could be a bit lower but this is a rule that applies to *all* ships. I'm not certain which KM ship you are referring to. The context in which warships were designed is extremely important and Friedman covers that well, but I'm not seeing him as guilty of intentionally messing with the numbers to prove a point.

So they keep the event going but now you can't even buy sovereigns anymore? What the hell WG?

I'd argue for a universal secondary buff at this point. As it is right now only a handful of specialized ships have useful secondary guns.

USN Apologist? I'll admit where they made mistakes. For example the plans for post-WW1 shipbuilding were a mess with the capital ships being too unbalanced and suffering from several deficiencies, we should be thankful the Washington Treaty intervened. That said the 16" gun was not one of those mistakes. Even with the original 16"/45 caliber Mark 1 the USN considered eight of those guns on the Colorado class to represent a general improvement over the twelve 14" guns on preceding battleship classes. Even though the BL 16"/45 Mark I guns on the Nelsons were flawed in several respects the Royal Navy still wanted 16" guns. Yet they concluded they could not build a well "balanced" design with 16" guns on a displacement of 35,000 tons standard loading. While the RN thought 15" guns were the ideal choice, Great Britain's push for the 14" caliber limit meant the KGVs would be were armed with 14" guns. Yet with the increase in caliber and tonnage allowed by the escalator clause they intended to equip the following Lion class with new 16"/45 caliber guns. Ultimately the Lions were never built but there is no reason to believe the BL 16"/45 Mark II and III would have been poor guns. Clearly they didn't believe that precise 16" guns were beyond the technology of the time. The H-39 series battleships that the Germans planned to construct would have also been armed with 16" guns and the Italians had done design work on 16" guns including likely helping the Soviets develop their own 16" design. Meanwhile Imperial Japan seemed to have a positive experience with the 16" guns on the Nagato class and they considered the even larger 18" guns on the Yamato to be precise. You are right that the long-serving BL 15"/42 Mark I achieved a very good record but that doesn't prove either the 16"/45 Mark 6 or 16"/50 Mark 7 were imprecise. Generally speaking battleship engagements were rare. However USS Massachusetts with a green crew scored multiple hits at a great enough range where the shells were able to penetrate the heavy deck armor of Jean Bart. USS Washington gutted Kirishima like a fish and even though that was at close range it still counts as sinking a capital ship. The battleships of the Iowa class hit a lot of targets on land over the years and hardly proved to be an inaccurate or imprecise weapon. As for Friedman what are these issues that supposedly stops foreign works from citing him? As with any author he has made the occasional mistake but I don't see anything to suggest he is extremely biased. As a final product Vanguard was too late to be of any use but she was still a good design. With the supercharges that likely would have been allocated in a wartime situation the old 15" guns would have performed well enough but you're fooling yourself if you think they were the match of much newer guns.

The USN 16" Mark 6 and 7 lacked precision? Complete rubbish, they were some of the most precise guns ever built. You only seem intent on preserving the mythical reputation of the BL 15"/42. Also your comments about Friedman are completely off the mark. Where are examples of this supposed cherry-picking.

17x costs? Fine. Lets next remove the magical concealment ratings ships have, give battleships their full secondary ranges, give everybody radar, and make it so if you sink you have to sit around in the ocean on a raft and hope somebody comes to save you. Also repairs will take 3 months. The damage caused by those large caliber shells is already heavily nerfed against small ships so how much more do you expect? Secondaries on most ships are essentially worthless. Do you expect to be able to sail up to an enemy BB with little trouble?

Here is the thing, destroyers tend to be sunk by other destroyers or cruisers (or more often aircraft) because the battleships aren't around or are shooting at the other battleships. Would you like your destroyer's guns to have 3% accuracy? Because the same applies as range increases. How about losing your unlimited torpedo reloads?