Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

854 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

2,266 profile views
  1. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    And again, it doesn't matter. It's entirely irrelevant to the time period I'm mentioning. (Or did you forget that first deployment =/= fully entering service?) There is a significant period between 1945 and the introduction of AShMs where, were your theory correct, every nation should have been arming all of their ships with 15 inch guns (and not designing them for bigger guns as the "ideal", as was what happened with many designs, even the Royal Navy ones). You keep going off on tangents. That, and you still haven't sourced your base claims.
  2. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    I understand that, however, an increase in gunpowder effectiveness usually correlates with an increase in the maximum caliber of the shell capable of being fired effectively.
  3. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    Actually, I said 1945-1955, and I am still correct: The Termit was not the first ship-launched AShM in the Soviet arsenal; that title goes to the KSShch, which first entered service in 1955. Now, I made a minor oversight: The air-launched KS-1 Komet entered service in 1953, but was so big only strategic bombers could carry it. Since the Termit entered after, not before, the KSShch, we know it entered service after 1955. Was the threat of the Komet real? Well, yes, but only over waters where the Soviets had air-superiority, considering the bulkiness, ease of interception, and cost of it's launch platform. Either way, the Soviets were also more interested in arming their Tupolevs with nuclear weapons, since they could theoretically make one-way trips to threaten Chicago. Which you have yet to support with any definitive evidence, hence, Pot, Kettle, Black.
  4. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    Pot, meet kettle.
  5. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    Incorrect: The time period I asked about was specifically a period before the debut of the Guided-Missile Cruisers. Sure, you had certain air-launched weapons like Fritz X and the ASM-N-2 Bat, but those had a relatively short range since they had no propulsion systems, and in the case of Fritz X, the gunner has to stay close-enough to control the weapon via Radio. The Bat (Robin, hand me the Bat Bomb!) was only used once. [Not to be confused with the other bat bomb, the US apparently really liked their Bats] The Germans did have a prototype weapon, the Blohm & Voss BV 143, that acted more like what we know of as an AShM, but the technology of the time didn't support that kind of weapon, as it proved unable to consistently maintain altitude, and rocket-misfires were extremely common. If we're going by Air-launched platforms, then my timeline is still pretty-accurate: the Soviets didn't introduce an air-launched AShM until 1953, but it didn't truly enter service until 1955. So I'm pretty sure missiles aren't the reason.
  6. Carrier_Lexington

    Bonus Code I Found On FaceBook

  7. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    However, it did happen over the 1940s, specifically between 1940, when 15 inch guns ruled the day, to 1944-1945, when 16 inch guns, coupled with extremely advanced FCS systems, demonstrated superiority. I want to ask you a question: If the 15 inch gun was so superior, why did nations stop relying on it in the period between 1940 and 1955 (dawn of Guided Missile Cruisers with the converted Boston)? Surely if what you were saying was true, then no one would have stopped building 15" armed ships.
  8. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    What does the "quality of gunpowder" have to do with the caliber of a gun? If anything, better quality powder made existing designs obsolete by making better, larger designs more viable, unless you have actual sources you can cite. Or, you know, you could just do the math you claim is so important here, in this thread. I mean, assuming you understand it. You've been throwing around random science terms for a while. I'm not quite sure you understand what you're spewing at us.
  9. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    I must ask you again, since pretty-much all of your following claims are based on this argument: What are you saying the math says is superior about the 15" shell? I go back to Pomegranates: Just saying it's superior doesn't mean anything. Alternatively, it can be extremely misleading, if you were to realize that the conclusion that Pomegranates were superior was based on the fact that Pomegranate has a superior number of seeds compared to similarly-sized fruit. It has nothing to do with taste! Also, I'm going to have to ask you for more sources on which 16" guns were "poor performers." You've made this claim several times, but have yet, as far as I've seen, to back it up. From what I understand, Washington's 16" guns performed extremely well against Kirishima, crippling her in 7 minutes without taking any hits during the battle. They also performed well against Primauguet on Massachussets. Also, tmw you use the word "fractal" to try to make your argument appear more valid. In other words, you have failed to actually address any of the issues I demonstrated with your claims. They still lack evidence, and they are still dependent on your claim being true in order for them to have validity.
  10. Carrier_Lexington

    Vanguard Buffs as per Dev Blog

    Where are you even getting that? No comment was made pertaining to this, so I fail to see the reasoning at all. It's absolutely irrelevant to the comment you are discussing. Phoenix was discussing how superior gun crews could and did also play a significant factor in the success of the BL 15/42, you can't base the merits of the gun on the gun alone. I fail to see how discussing dubious mathematics, which have as of yet not been linked to any quantifiable aspect of gunnery, has anything to do with this discussion. It's like saying, "Math says that the optimum fruit is a pomegranate." Where are you getting that conclusion from? In what qualifiable aspect does a Pomegranate demonstrate quantifiable superiority over other fruit? How does math relate to fruit? Establish a causal link, otherwise, it's just incoherent raving. I'm going to go one further than Phoenix and say that the 15" guns saw many, many more battles than 16 inch guns, so it's quite obvious that they would have more kills attributed to them. Again, citing numbers of kills is not an easily-defendable metric for this type of discussion. If we're going to go proportionate to the sample, the USN 16 inch guns, when used, have scored many more crippling hits with fewer shells than 15 inch guns, notably nuking Kirishima and Primaguet, as well as having been fired at DDs and smaller craft, and shore targets. Finally, I am going to propose a different reason why so many navies built 15 inch guns: That, at the time many of these nations ships were being designed, 15" guns were the latest and greatest in warship armament due to technological limitations on gun size. After weapons of 16" or higher became commonplace, the industries were still producing 15" guns, and converting them to producing 16" guns would take too long and waste resources, notably those used in 15" guns already in production or in stock. America had none of these issues, both having a gargantuan industrial backbone that was too far away for Germany or Japan to strategic-bomb, and because it entered the war late and was thus able to enter after science had progressed. Your claims have serious problems because you don't supply solid evidence towards them: You say the words, "Optimization Mathematics" like it means something and say that it says that some shell size is the best at some undefined task. You fail to realize that correlation is not causation in the kill-counts of the 15 inch guns with regards to other factors, and you also fail to account for the sample size Your claims as to why navies built 15" guns are circular and naturalistic: you make the claim that 15" guns are superior, then say, "And because they were superior, so many nations built them" when there are not only other, more logical conclusions, but this evidence fails to support your claim because your first claim has to be true in order for your "evidence" to mean anything.
  11. Carrier_Lexington

    Raising the Dead, Discontinued Ships

    You can also find Blyska in the tech tree for Doubloons occasionally. Also, you can still get a variant of the Kamikaze, the Kamikaze R, from a Supercontainer. @Troa_Barton So, the thing with Belfast and Kutuzov is that, when the Smoke firing nerf went through, there were a lot of people being ugly on the forums. Wargaming said they would offer refunds on those ships for their full doubloon value, but they wouldn't sell them again. The thing with WG and refunds is that they usually don't issue them unless they've really goofed. You can always sell a premium for credits, and if you haven't done anything with a premium at all (mounting flags, camos, modules, signals, assigning Captain Skills or captains that didn't come with the ship, taking it into any battle), you can get a cash refund. When WG released an incredibly garbage GZ, they gave players access to GZ improvement testing and promised that they would have an exclusivity period of three weeks when she finally dropped. That's why you don't see Belfast or Kutuzov in the store anymore.
  12. Carrier_Lexington

    Mouse's Morning of Testing

  13. Carrier_Lexington

    Possible BB AP shell change against DD

    A link to a source for this would be much appreciated. I am highly interested.
  14. Carrier_Lexington

    yet another detonation thread

    80%, you're thinking of 80% or less. And, usually, it doesn't even do that. The most crippling detonation I've seen post-tweak have been ~52% health, and usually result from a large AP hit directly to the Magazines. Yeah, it sucks, but magazine hits count as citadel hits, so even if the target didn't detonate, it would still suffer tremendously and have a lot of its impact removed from the fight. Is it fun to be detonated? No. But it does throw in even the tiniest chance when you are being chased by an enemy that has superior health and guns to you but is foolishly sailing broadside with their magazines exposed.
  15. Carrier_Lexington

    yet another detonation thread

    sat·ire /ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/ noun the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. My logic borrowed your logic and extended it to show you the problems with just resolving everything by, "removing what people complain about, and no one will complain about it." If all we are concerned with is complaints, then, for that matter, Wargaming could just remove all of their forums or other social aspects of their game and ban the creation of such things in their EULA. Then, no one would complain about anything. The point is: there will always be someone who complains about something. Sometimes, these complaints have merits, and sometimes they don't.