Jump to content

Phaere

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2131

Community Reputation

70 Good

About Phaere

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

509 profile views
  1. Phaere

    French Destroyers announced

    I gotta say for the Tier 10 I would've preferred the Surcouf as she was actually built. For the most part the ships are the same but the Surcouf used the 5" /54 model 1948 which was based on the USN 5" /54 (less punchy buy significantly faster fire rate). The speed for the Kleber is pure fiction.
  2. This seems to be a pure fiction design. As far as I can find the USN only worked on 3x3 designs for 457mm caliber guns and not 2 gun turret designs. The USN 457mm gun had a muzzle velocity of 823mps for the 2900lb shell and 723mps for the 3850lb super heavy shell.
  3. You basically say it yourself in your post that Battleships used them too although at a later date. Tiger was simply one of the first capital ships to use such for structural integrity. If you're building a ship designed to go at high speeds of course you're going to do make sure its capable of such without breaking itself. Pretty much every nation that could build battleships used both as they were progressing to faster BB designs. Even the US standards used longitudinal bulkheads along with transverse bulkheads. You aren't going to tell me the USN standard battleships are designed based off of cruisers too now, are you?
  4. I would like the ask where in my post did I ever say that? Or anyone in this thread for that matter? You are putting words into peoples mouths that they never said. Anyone that is not stupid knows things this basic. Battlecruisers were however LONGER than battleships of the time. Higher length to beam ratio does lend to faster speeds. On further research I will agree that Early british battlecruisers were heavily inspired by the obsolete armored cruisers. But that is wholly not true for later ones. I'm to lazy to search for which design started it but by the time of the Tiger-class British battlecruisers did become more battleship like leaving behind the armored cruiser roots entirely. Except for a few small things the Tiger was essentially a lengthened Orion / KGV with 1 less gun turret, less armor, along with 4x the engine power. Armored cruisers are not really "cruisers" though in a modern sense. No actually cruiser design actually evolved from them, they just became an obsolete dead end. Modern cruisers were evolved off of WWI light and Protected cruisers (the former more than the latter). When you look at interwar Battlecruisers such as the British admirals, and G's the American Lexington, the numerous cancelled japanese designs. They were all built like battleships with 0 armored cruiser design lineage left.
  5. For the most part BCs are classified as battleships ingame as they generally shared many of the same characteristics from armor design, tonnage, and hullform to the large guns. The thinner armor is generally meaningless. I would generally argue differently. During / after WW1 pretty much had equal tonnage and layout to battleships built around the same time. For the difference between British and German battlecruisers its generally meaningless. Yes the British ones had significantly less armor but bigger guns than the German ones. But that doesn't mean much. British CC's were in no way "cruiser like" except for their speed. The hull form and the layout of the armor (especially internally) was nearly identical to how it was done for Battleships of the same era and shared almost no similarities with cruiser design. Even the the interwar period were a lot of nations that still cared about battlecruisers and dabbled in their designs, the designs themselves were based off of Battleships not cruisers. Battlecruisers have and were always designed around being a "capital ship" in the fleet same with battleships. This is different for the Larger cruisers and panzerschiff. They carried bigger guns that what cruisers carried generally yes, but that's overall meaningless by itself. The hull form, internals layout, and armor layout were completely based on cruiser designs. Yes they were heavier, yes they were bigger, yes they had bigger guns. But they were still cruisers. In the early-late 40's bigger was better. Battleships were getting bigger with the 45k ton (nearly 60k actually) Iowa's, destroyers (Gearing was slightly bigger and 1k tons heavier than Fletcher), carriers, etc were all getting bigger. Its only natural that cruisers followed suit. Duetschland is a bit different that the Alaska and such. Being actually lighter and smaller than the Hipper's that followed it. But it again is designed like a cruiser. If you look at an internal design for the Duetschland and Hipper they are nearly identical with only small variations on armor thickness here and there. Then compare them to the Scharnhorst or Bismark and they couldn't be any more different. And no the Soviets never called the Kron and Stalingrad battlecruisers. Only the western nations and wikipedia does. Russia calls the Kron and Stalingrad "Тяжёлые крейсера" plug that into google translate and see what comes out, I assure you it won't be battlecruiser.
  6. From the turret knockout you got it looks like the shell either penetrated the turret or barbette and then ricocheted down into the citadel.
  7. Phaere

    Old, outdated and ugly models.

    I can definitely agree with this. A lot of the older ships have significantly worse model detail, textures, etc compared to newer ships. Especially the IJN and USN lines that have been around since alpha / beta. Its rather common for people to get better at doing something the more the do it, and it shows when looking at the old ships compared to newer ones. So I think it would be amazing to see the WG team use their years of experience and create new models and textures for older ships. Of course I wouldn't expect something any time soon, but it would be nice to see a slow roll out of updated older ships like WoT did with their HD tank models (before Core engine).
  8. Phaere

    Fix the Yamato's cheek weak spot

    To repeat what Vak said earlier, the test was done with a reduced charge in order to simulate a long ranged impact. First test with ~1900 feet/sec which roughly translates into a 15k yard shot and a second shot with ~1700 feet/sec to mimic a ~30k yard shot. For the long ranged test shot the angle of impact wouldn't be all that different from reality due to how the turret armor is angled. Even then the shell doesn't need to penetrate to do damage. Just the shear impact of such a large shell is enough to do considerable damage. You see it pop up a lot in reports on British vs German naval engagements of WWII. A battleship caliber shell hitting a turret / barbette can and have knocked out the power lines running to the turret, knocked out the hydraulics and other systems used to train the turret, disabled optics / fcs, etc. I believe there was even a case of a non-penetrating shell completely jamming a turret because of how large the dent it left in the barbette.
  9. There were many projects to rearm the Challenger with the Rheinmetall 120 L/55. It was found the turret could easily accommodate the better gun. The problem though was ammunition. The Challenger series' hull and turret space was designed around the multi-piece ammunition of the British L11 / L30. The tank was completely incapable of storing more than about a half dozen of the large single piece and long rod projectiles of the 120 L/55. Storing more ammunition would of required a completely new turret design which needless to say would of been to expensive for an upgrade for the British so they decided to stick with the dated L30 for the foreseeable future. Russians have a similar issue. The auto-loaders of their T-series is incapable of handling long rod ammunition which limits the performance of the gun especially against armored targets. Only the new 125mm 2A82-1M and its newer auto-loading system can use long rods.
  10. Then WG could just take 5 seconds to edit a single line of code to rename her to one of the other Colorado class such as Washington or Maryland so they could still use the WV name for a potential unique T7 or w/e premium in the future. WV had the most extensive refits out of all the Colorado class battleships and ignoring its history is a stupid move and will honestly burn them sales wise to the US server market. People would react a lot more kindly to having a stock Maryland or Washington at tier 6 because those are not as unique and interesting as the WV was.
  11. Phaere

    Tilliman class US BB?

    The best you can hope for is a Iowa or Montana design preliminary armed with 3x3 457mm /47 Mark A's. The Tillman designs where a circle jerk between a few people deciding who can compensate the most and design the biggest bo... battleship. They were completely impractical and and never would of been able to be built. And even then no sane person would ever order these ridiculous designs. For some reason pretty much every major navy design board 1 day between 1912-1916 drank too much vodka and took some really strong drugs and came up with ridiculous crap such has the RU 16x 16" gun Battleship design, and the RN 6x 20" Incomparable design.
  12. Phaere

    Alaska shoud be a Tier 7 Battleship

    That's... wrong. In the USN Battlecruisers and the term were rendered obsolete by the Fast Battleships not the Alaska. There was simply no need for a battlecruiser unit when a NC, SD, or Iowa can fill the role of a battlecruiser, carrier escort, and the traditional battleship role while having same speed, better armor, and a powerful 16" armament. Battleship / dreadnought, and battlecruiser ("capital ships") evolved over the 1920's to become what was known as "fast battleships" in the 1930's. Large Cruisers are an advancement of the Heavy Cruiser design after the restrictive limitations of the naval treaties became null and void. You don't need battlecruisers to counter heavy cruisers, do you know whats also designed to fight cruisers? other cruisers. The Alaska's were designed to defeat the Japanese heavy cruisers which were believe to be superior in every way to the USN's own heavy cruisers and also provide a match to the planned IJN super cruiser designs. The USN could of went with a more traditional CA design, but they scrapped it in favor of CA2 (Alaska) because it was believe that bigger guns would serve their purpose better than simply having more 8" guns. Alaska's project name was: CA2. And as you know CA stands for "Heavy Cruiser". In the late 1930's and early 1940's the USN believed the IJN Heavy Cruisers to be superior in all aspects to their own, even the soon to be launched Baltimore class was believed to be outmatched by them. So the USN began a project a design a new CA which would be superior to every IJN CA in service and provide a counter the the Japanese super cruiser designs which they had heard rumors of. The CA project ended up taking 2 routes: CA2 and CA-B/C. The CA2 plans called for a larger CA armed with 12" guns and armor to resist all current 8" guns. CA-B/C (which Buffalo is based off of) was a more conservative design, instead of going for a significantly larger ship with bigger guns and more armor, it was simple a slightly larger ship with an extra 8" 3-gun mount added with similar projection to current CA's. So the designs went to bigger guns vs more guns. And well bigger guns won out. Project CA-B/C was scrapped and Project CA2 was put forward into the full design process and eventually built into what we know as the Alaska's today.
  13. Phaere

    Stalingrad: Hot or Not?

    Now we just need CA2-D as a USN Tier 10 steel CA to fight against Stalingrad with and then the circle shall be complete: Yes. That is indeed 12x 12" /50 cannons .
  14. Phaere

    when did Daring get released

    Super Testers and Community Contributors always get access to new ships earlier for testing than the rest of us normal plebs.
  15. Phaere

    Pin Up Video

    Just like with the last population based event WG is vasty overestimating how many people actually play this game. The video in all honesty is not going to attract views from people outside of people who already play WG games (which would of been need to reach anywhere over 500k views). WG simply needs to come back to reality and vastly scale down the scope of these kinds of events. For example 500k views should of been the top tier reward. Do 100k as bottom tier, 250-300k as mid-tier, and 500k as the top tier reward for the event. Who ever thought 1 million would be possible and a good idea probably needs to lay off the Vodka bottle for awhile.
×