Jump to content

SireneRacker

Wiki Editor
  • Content Сount

    9,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7995
  • Clan

    [WG-CC]

Community Reputation

3,282 Superb

About SireneRacker

  • Rank
    Vice Admiral
  • Birthday August 21
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The lonely German corner in the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Military history (anything before 1990), no matter where and when. Technical details, strategies and more are always good to know.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,704 profile views
  1. SireneRacker

    Paper Warships

    When I say history channel on the WoWs discord, how do you end up with some tv channel? What reason would I have to bring up a random tv channel when you specifically talked about game related history discussions? For clarity, WoWs has an official discord server, it has a history channel, and it's quite active (topic for the past days mainly being the dismemberment of Dutch designs in light of WG's announcements).
  2. SireneRacker

    Paper Warships

    People stopped debating about history? You better not see the history channel on the WoWs discord... Can go even earlier, before the Alpha officially started WG stated that they'd consider breaking the 460mm "rule" for German battleships. Literally can't do that without paper, and even that paper is sketchy~
  3. Didn't even need a nearby naval threat. A threat anywhere on the Atlantic would've been enough, because it was plain obvious that she was not gonna make it home in the condition she was in. She was limited to 17kn speed max by the machinery at that point, due to excessive wear of her motors (she exceeded the operation time between maintenance by a factor of two), so you could literally have some Queen Elizabeth class battleship sailing right up to her. The false intelligence may have given Langsdorff some extra confirmation, but I doubt that without that deception he would've acted differently.
  4. SireneRacker

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    At this point you might as well try to make a full comparison between the guns, but as said before that is mostly irrelevant given the context. Even penetration by itself doesn't tell an awful lot given how shell manufacturing and quality will impact the real world performance of shells (which will show itself when shells hit thick and/or heavily angled armor). Ignoring that turning circle alone is merely one of many values when it comes to mobility (how long does it take for the ship to respond to rudder changes, how much speed do you bleed during a turn, how heavy does the ship list and does that cause issues with other systems, the list is long), the question is if this is an actual detriment or merely an inconvenience. I don't have the values for Renown, but overall I doubt it makes much of a difference. Both should be able to hold up against an aerial torpedo striking the SPS, and I wouldn't want to take an average wartime ship launched torpedo with either of them.
  5. SireneRacker

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    So you make blanket statements about radar systems based on a. first times firing full charges on an essentially unfinished ship and b. cases where the most sensitive equipment got hit and knocked out? I doubt that Alaska is faring much worse than most ships here, if at all. If I look at Renown and Repulse, I see them running around with a single rudder as well. That aside, a factor can only be called compromised if there is something that significantly impairs the entire section or makes it outright fail. Like say a ship starts to suffer severe vibrations beyond a certain speed to the point where fire control equipment becomes unusable, like on certain French destroyers, casting doubt over the entire mobility of these ships. Of course if you have data to compare the turning behaviour of Alaska in comparison to one or more of the candidates to make a case of her faring much worse to the point where you would face severe issues, then I'm all ears... Looking at the explosive throw rate alone is rather one dimensional. I could just as much say to compare shell weight throw rate and with your figures get 13,959kg/min for Alaska and 13,912kg/min for Renown. But the key point here is that Alaska doesn't have to be the best in terms of main armament. It is undeniable that her gun performance is way above what one would think when just hearing "nine 305mm guns", and her firepower is more than capable of landing hits into the vitals of all the ships you listed here. We can go over which of the two would be the true queen in terms of firepower, but that's not necessary anyway we are looking at the ships as a whole. We could of course now look at the protection, and find that Renown's armor allows for shells to bypass the main belt and hit the splinter turtleback once the angle of fall exceeds 15° (or even less if we assume Renown to be at an angle), making her theoretically speaking vulnerable to heavy cruiser fire (A Baltimore at 15km should have no issue getting through that). This is a prime example of the defensive factor getting compromised. On Alaska you won't find such oddities, her 96-102mm deck connects right with the upper edge of the main belt, making her deck more or less safe against Renown's shells at up to 24km. And you also won't find notable differences between machinery and magazine armor, unlike Renown where the deck will be either 64mm or 102mm (making her vulnerable at 16km and beyond for the machinery, using the same shells).
  6. SireneRacker

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    I don't see Scharnhorst having much of a place in a battlecruiser themed discussion, even by your definition since they were designed and built to engage certain capital ships (Dunkerque and Strasbourg). That comment about her radar failing is off as well, and I invite you to find an actual backing for that statement that makes German radar stand out as fragile. Regardless, from all those ships Alaska is the winner here if one just looks at what you get in overall performance (so the pentagon of mobility, offensive, defensive, tactical values [AA goes here] and strategical values) in relation to the tonnage. Alaska comes with a very good main armament that shouldn't be looked down upon because of the caliber (shell quality was superb, allowing them to punch way above their limit), the armor is well balanced without any weird features that could compromise the entire system, they are the fastest of the candidates (followed somewhat closely by Scharnhorst, then the British and French hover at their 29-30kn) without any mobility-compromising issues, the AA in both hardware and software excels and the cruising range should be the highest of all as well, giving them a lot more flexibility from the strategical standpoint. It's just not much of a contest.
  7. SireneRacker

    Germany considers bans to lootboxes to customers under 18

    That law is about the evaluation of a medium for age restrictions. Until this proposal came such restrictions were solely based on the content of the medium (as well as not considering "modern" mediums like the internet), now things like marketing can under certain circumstance also be considered for the rating. If WG selling lootboxes would trigger this law, you could see WG products get an 18+ rating which would harm WG's intention of keeping their game open to an audience of 13+. So their options would be to either cease the action that triggered the rating (ie do what they did with Belgium) or live with the 18+ rating. But all that is dependent on them actually falling under that law, which I doubt given the wording.
  8. SireneRacker

    Germany considers bans to lootboxes to customers under 18

    If this is about the same law changes I read a week ago, then the text of the law does not flat out ban loot boxes for minors. This was the proposed text back then: Look under §10 b Now roughly translating the crucial bit it says "For the judgement on the interference of [a child's] development factors outside the content of the medium can be considered, if they are a part meant to last of the medium and justify a different overall evaluation." Let's say lootboxes are deemed such a factor, you have the condition that it must be basically a permanent thing in the game. If you only sell those boxes once a year, or twice, and keep them out in between, they are arguably outside the scope of this law and considering them for the total evaluation of the age restriction can no longer be justified.
  9. I... need a break, and a decently sized bottle of beer...
  10. SireneRacker

    Help from history buff's

    Aside from history.navy I usually use http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/055/04055.htm , it can contain some real gem pictures.
  11. SireneRacker

    Izumo guns

    Two things. 1. I said for the most part. Some ships, in particular those with improved autobounce but with floaty arcs can in theory plunge. But these cases are far from normal, especially when the talk is about Japanese battleships in which case none of them gets improved autobounce. 2. If you opened the link I sent, you'd see a case of not just firing at 32km, but at 33.5km. And still, at a range with shell flight times of 23s, you are hitting the deck at autobounce angles.
  12. SireneRacker

    Izumo guns

    Please take everything you heard about deck hits and immediately forget it. Plunging fire for the most part does not exist in this game. Game mechanics do not allow it. If you want, the above leads you to a short explanation on why.
  13. I Got nothing to say except nice post~ I want one
  14. SireneRacker

    USS Houston CA-30

    More like she lost the tubes around 1934... This is Houston in 1935, after some minor modification to carry Pres Roosevelt around. The torpedo cutout is well covered. Without spending more time looking up various pictures or purchasing further literature, I'll throw into the room that she lost the tubes around the same time when they'd install the ramps for their President. So more like, a 1933 version you'd need for the torpedo cruiser. And here I thought people wanted Houston for her stand against the IJN, yet you ask for a version that is not even remotely close to that event....
  15. SireneRacker

    USS Houston CA-30

    I regret to inform you, but the Northamptons lost their torpedo tubes as well. Asking navypedia, this happened in 1931. Looking at pictures of Houston, this is also further backed. Here is Houston early in her career: The torpedo tube cutout right aft of the aft funnel is clearly visible, as is the launcher itself. Now Houston as she appeared in 1942, or how she would be fighting her last battle: The cutout is gone, as are the tubes.
×