Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

913 Excellent

About Carrier_Lexington

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/27/1998
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Spying from an air duct in the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Space, Russian Destroyers, American CVs, anime, being a nice person

Recent Profile Visitors

3,046 profile views
  1. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    Wow, I didn't know they kept such good records. However, I think the Germans would have put an Me262, or something very similar, into production anyway had they had the proper materials and supplies to do so. After all, most major powers were experimenting with Jet Aircraft. This is true, but I also think it's worth mentioning that there were a massive number of reclamation projects launched after and before the end of the war to try and find Me262s and other similar equipment, such as the US's [aptly named] Operation LUSTY (unrelated to maids in any way, Argonian or otherwise). [The British had a similar operation, called the Fedden Mission]
  2. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    The only combat-operational Allied jet aircraft in the Second World War was the Gloster Meteor, which came after the 262. The metallurgy was not quite where it needed to be, but it was there enough to produce a workable jet fighter that performed well at its intended role (but could have been improved by the addition of dive brakes). Also, what figure are you using for service life? If I recall correctly, a lot of 262s were shot-down taking-off or landing (ie: Rat-Scramble), which would have a negative impact on life expectancy. Or are those figures excluding combat losses, and, if they are, how?
  3. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    The Me 262 was actually a massive leap in what it was supposed to do: fight bombers, which was what Germany needed to do at the time. Most of its problems aside from the limitations of the era's technology stemmed from the fact that it didn't have any sort of dive brakes, meaning that when it attacked a bomber from a dive, it had too short of a window between entering effective range and having to break off to avoid collision. Furthermore, a rocket was developed for the Me262 which was also very effective at anti-bomber engagements, but by that period, it was just too late for Germany. The other main drawback of the Me262 was that a certain head of state decided that these incredibly fast aircraft without airbrakes and with poor low-altitude handling needed to immediately be put to use as ground-attack aircraft against the Soviets. I think the fact that the Me262 pretty-much prompted every major nation to create or prioritize the creation of workable fighter jets within the next decade shows that it was a valid and exceedingly effective concept of an air superiority and interceptor fighter.
  4. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    Minneapolis didn't sink, though based on the picture that looks more like it was a result of crew training and a significant amount of luck over any technological inferiorities in the Type 93. But that's a long time in port after that particular mission-kill. I mean, yeah. It's a Wunderwaffe: great in theory, but in practice there's a reason no one else has developed it. It would have been much more useful on a submarine platform, with shorter range and higher speed.
  5. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    I would say that, while important and relevant, I feel like the implementation of strategic downsides as opposed to tactical downsides in what is primarily a TDM game is a little hectic to balance, and to represent the strategic downsides of a torpedo by grossly contradicting its tactical advantages is not the way to go about it. That would be like if WoT gave the Maus worse armor than most of it's lower-tier counterparts in-game to model the poor quality of steel that was available to produce it at the time it was designed. I agree that, in real life, the Type 93 was a Wunderwaffe trap, but I think a lot of that can be said for a lot of the ships currently in WoWS which don't get the same treatment as the Type 93.
  6. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    Demonstrate them. All these "sources" you claim to exist (there's a "claim" for you). And your "statement" is a claim, like all statements. In fact, everything is a claim, which is why there are so few scientific laws and so many scientific theories. Any number.... give me 8 "valid historical texts" which still hold up under current scientific scrutiny that support his and therefore, by extension, your position, and then we can actually debate. But right now your position is completely laughable and can't be taken seriously.
  7. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    Really? Then cite them. Now, since you seem to find these "valid historical sources" so "easily." He/your alt, so far, has refused to. We already have our data, which we have cited several times over. If you have different data you would like to cite and present to change our minds, present it now, or forever hold your peace.
  8. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    And then when jets came around it turned out that a radar-targeted .50cal HMG is actually a much-superior weapon over an unstabilized, untargeted 23mm or 30mm cannon, since early jets didn't have much in the way of armor due to the limitations of technology. According to what he said in a previous post on another thread, he's some form of Chemical Engineer who did a brief stint as an MP (??). Of course, I'm thinking Sanitation Engineer is much more likely. Oh yeah, because I definitely remember learning about Euclidean Norms and Vector Fields in 3rd Grade Common Core Math.
  9. Carrier_Lexington

    The Case for IJN Long Lance

    Don't bother trying to engage with RC. He's in his own little world where he's the only person.
  10. Of course, you still have issues with people blocking shots or torps. "Hey, see that guy? I'm gonna go troll him by ramming him while he tries to shoot, making him set me on fire and getting damage." "Hey, I want that BB kill. I'm just going to block these torps from my ally so I can deal the damage that kills him. It's not going to hurt me at all."
  11. Specifically, by blocking people's shots or torps when they want to get the damage or the kill. I've seen it happen in games without Team damage.
  12. The system doesn't forget for a couple months, if I recall correctly. I once got a "pink" of something like 48 battles, not for Team Damage, but because I kept disconnecting in the middle of battle (WoWS Wrapper needs a fix) and the game treated it as "deserting." Essentially, you get out of that 2 games of pink, TK someone again, now you've got 6 games of pink. Get out of that, and it jumps up again, I think to somewhere between 12 and 18, and at that point, you're Co-op only.
  13. Carrier_Lexington

    PSA: Just apologize for friendly fire.

    Being a friendly team-mate in general is almost always worth it. There are a few players who will go out and troll by blocking shots or torps and letting DoT rack up, but they tend to be the minority and not at all interested in friendly play anyways.
  14. I would disagree. I have found that, when playing aggressively, Superintendent is a very useful skill for ships of most classes, but particularly BBs. Of course, this won't apply if you are playing a back-line ship or in a more back-line playstyle, but the extra charge of Damage Repair Party can be incredibly useful on most ships. Of course, for Spotter planes, that works differently, as a Montana can't use all of its spotters in a single battle, even without the premium version. However, it's always good to have an extra charge of Surveillance Radar or Damage Repair Party. And I wouldn't think of taking Nelson out without SI, as you're basically giving up another use of Nelson's ridiculously-strong gimmick. Of course, that is just my own experience. Your mileage may vary.
  15. Carrier_Lexington

    Conqueror Kremlin

    First-off, I'm not the one who's making all the outlandish and completely-unsupported claims that you are, nor am I the one who makes these claims without any supporting research. I am also not the one who denigrates the research of other institutions (such as generations of US Naval ballistic testing). This is exactly why I have, am, and will continue to call your claims out as unscientific and bogus. I do not have to be an engineer to know that, when someone starts spewing words without citing sources, claims that official sources are wrong or propaganda, and attempts to pass their own claims off as scientific evidence supporting those claims (circular reasoning), they aren't arguing in good-faith (or, if they are, it's only because the "truth" they believe in is a delusion of grandeur). All I have to have to know that is the briefest introduction to science and even the baseline level of intelligence and common sense. And despite it all, you never actually demonstrated the mathematics step-by-step for determining that 15" guns are superior to 16" guns. You never cited any sources arguing to that effect. And you haven't cited any sources to the effect of the argument you are making now. Sir Isaac Newton, a revolutionary scientist whose ideas about physics still hold a great deal of sway over how we see the world at the macro- scale almost three hundred years after his death, is known for using a phrase traced to Bernard of Chartres, "If I have seen further it is by standing upon the shoulders of Giants," in a letter to Robert Hooke in 1675 (that is one of myriad methods with which you can cite a source on these forums) describing how Hooke's and Des-Cartes' [sic] contributions built the foundations of one of his discoveries [presumably splitting wavelengths of light with prisms, based on the previous sentence's reference to coloured plates]. You, meanwhile, have done the opposite. So entrenched in anecdote and mired in your own "qualification" are you that you, instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, dig a hole into your own self, expecting to somehow see further. Ethos - Pathos - Logos Credibility - Appeal - Logic All three are needed to convince someone that you know what you are talking about. Sometimes, you manage one.