Jump to content
  • Content count

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

29 Neutral

About b101uk

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Profile on the website b101uk

Recent Profile Visitors

288 profile views
  1. thats where your wrong. I have added a couple of images, they are not very clear but they show some line plans at various frames, I have also added a higher resolution at one of the same frames at the boiler room/funnel uptake, you can clearly see the boiler rooms are the only place bar turrets that are above the SWL, as the boilers size and uptakes necessitate taking up an extra deck height.
  2. the problem is there and using KGV as the base example, the only place the citadel was above the waterline was the funnel uptakes/boiler rooms, and for a shell to get there from the side it has to go through the main belt (349mm machinery spaces), a 38mm for/aft bulkhead, then the get past the armoured for/aft bulkhead which itself was another >254mm <305mm. so which would you rather have, a below waterline citadel with >254mm <305mm worth of armour missing as it is now, or a portion of the citadel a few foot above the waterline BUT the whole for/aft bulkhead clad with the missing >254mm <305mm of armour, meaning you have at lest >641mm of armour to punch through to get to the citadel from the side just in the highest machinery spaces of the citadel. the armour scheme of KGV's etc was significantly better than the WoWS depiction would suggest, which is why they probably put every part of the citadel below the waterline rather than have to put part of it above the waterline but armoured to such an extent with the missing >254mm <305mm worth of armour protecting it, and not just the bit above the waterline but the whole of the side portions of the citadel.
  3. the Yamato's HE shells had a smaller bursting charge, even relative to 18" CPC shells, yet alone the HE shell. the RN 18" shells were 146kg heavier than Yamato's shells, that's quite a lot of extra bursting charge filler in an HE shell even accounting for the explosive types and their power relative to TNT.
  4. it still dose well based on the stats you have posted, after all just because it premium doesn't mean it should be the "best" topping every stat. I like my Gallant the way she is and until the rest of the RN DD line is here there is no need for any changes yet, or maybe when Cossack gets here and we see what difference there is to Gadjah Madah in the PA line, given there should be some continuity in per tube reloading time.
  5. the Mk37 DCT's were for the QF 5.25-inch secondary's, which used twin type 275 gun radar the two DCT's for the mains had type 274 FCR's each. she also had 30ft as opposed to 15ft rangefinders
  6. I have seen the same problem with my Kidd, launching from the starboard side (right), what would be the 4th torpedo (left to right of the spread) is often but not always right next to the 5th torpedo. also from viewing some replays, the wake of all the torpedoes seams misplaced vs. the visual modal and icon sometimes.
  7. CO-OP needs help

    Scenarios/Operations are much more lucrative than coop both in moneys and XP's, and the tier VII scenarios completing it with 5 stars nets about the same cash/xp as a good random game of similar tier.
  8. @Phoenix_jz ROF Cardonald shells had much better penetration at greater angles of obliquity afforded to them by the thicker walls of the shell body, while in conventional right-angle tests, the combination of different cap hardness and thicker shell body walls meant there was less kinetic energy lost due to shell body deforming, but their main advantage was as obliquity increased (relative to other 15" shells). or in WoWS this would translate a more oblique auto-bounce angle etc.
  9. Useful F KEY messages

    again I disagree, many people don't take any notice of chat when they are engrossed is something, while the F3 method would guarantee they get the message. the time it would take to place your view centre on ship A and press F3 then move your view centre to some torps and release the F3 button is far quicker than an typing their name and the warning and hoping they are not overly engrossed in doing something thus reading chat, given MOST people are not 120 word/min touch typists. if you think typing someone's name and the warning would be quicker, you must be an absurdly useless mouse user.
  10. Useful F KEY messages

    far less inconvenient than typing or NOT alerting someone to something, and would be significantly MORE convenient than what we have now.
  11. Useful F KEY messages

    F3 needs more contextual methods of use, so it can be used to alert etc specifically one thing to another thing rather than everyone, e.g. place the binocular view centre on friendly ship A and press and hold down F3, then move the binocular view centre to ship or object B an release the F3 button, thus alerting ship A to ship/object/item B. (alternatively double press F3 on ship A which will then cause it to wait for a third press of F3 centred on another item/ship B) this could be useful for alerting a ship to torpedoes quickly, where the ship has made a radical change of direction and is now intersecting with a torpedo path as both their ship and the torpedoes will flash on the mini-map and rather than the message be sent to everyone it is only sent to the ship in question.
  12. Premium DD Issues

    playing to strengths doesn't by any stretch of even the most diminished imagination mean you have to be close, timing an attack is often very critical if you are going to play to a strength and exploit an opponents weakness in that moment in time given the long turret traverse of many larger ships and even some DD's, while both range and position give the means to project fire not only over what you are behind but often/or what they can be behind or are moving towards while at the same time protecting you from their much flatter arc of fire, as for high arcs vs. low arcs of fire, that comes under positioning, strengths and timing i.e. exploiting an opponents weakness or converting one of their strengths into a disadvantage in that moment in time by you picking the time you engage, likewise a high arc 5"/38 can take out many more modules and start fires with more propensity than some comparative calibre with flatter arcs and a higher fire chance. my point about your post count, was more about putting to much stock in stats, like you did in your early post, you jumped to a conclusion based on some clearly incomplete data, much like me likening the disparity between your post count and battles to you talking a good battle ;) likewise just because you or maybe some others don't get on to well with 5"/38 doesn't mean everyone will feel the same, especially out towards maximum range, given many of us remember the Cleveland (6"/47) when it had much longer range and much higher arcs than 5"/38 thanks to the Advanced Firing Training which would work up to 155mm if I recall.
  13. Premium DD Issues

    you were asked a VERY simple question. just think a replay would pad you forum post number even more too!
  14. Premium DD Issues

    as someone with 4.51 times the forum post than battles, your obviously full of hot air and like stating your worthless opinion, after all the stats of yours tell us you very over opinionated and probably just talk a good battle, if you want to put stock in some worthless stats. or let me phrase it another way, is my statement "5"/38 mains DD are more than capable of acting like a gunboat if you play to their strengths, time your attack and use positioning to maximise your firing time while minimising the oppositions chance to fire back." wrong or right?
×