Jump to content

mofton

Members
  • Content Сount

    6,999
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    10682
  • Clan

    [SYN]

Community Reputation

2,349 Superb

About mofton

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia
    [SYN]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Seattle

Recent Profile Visitors

2,552 profile views
  1. mofton

    Well, well, well! The Alaska is real!

    In today's modern world, isn't an exclamation mark enough?
  2. mofton

    Well, well, well! The Alaska is real!

    The cruiser 'sarcasm', the battleship 'sardonic' and the destroyer 'facetious'?
  3. mofton

    Well, well, well! The Alaska is real!

    That's ok, none of them are at all fun!
  4. I generally feel pretty happy fighting other T8's in Vanguard. She has strengths and weaknesses, you can rely on her to take damage on the broadside but she's handy on the helm. She simply uptiers terribly. Combining 15in guns with low pen, that autobounce off a bunch of popular cruisers, with a vulnerable citadel and acres of 32mm plate isn't happy. Des Moines laughs at your guns, pens you everywhere and has tremendous DPM. It's rather unpleasant.
  5. mofton

    The state of the Leone

    I do think ships can be over-tiered and still just about work. Often it's by fairly uninspiring buffs which don't really add to gameplay or fun. I'd say the repair party on Abruzzi and dual-DFAA/hydro consumable on both fall into that category. D'Aosta just doesn't feel happy at T6, I can fight a plethora of T5's in D'Aosta and feel like I'm disadvantaged. I don't think she's good anti-DD, anti-cruiser or anti-BB. Both D'Aosta and D'Abruzzi will probably not do well in 0.8.0. DFAA on low-strength AA ships currently has the value of scattering an incoming drop, even if it doesn't kill planes. With the rework there is no scattering, and with DFAA D'Aosta I expect to go from 'can't kill a plane' to 'still can't kill a plane'.
  6. mofton

    Santa Crate Saturday - Best Prize

    I have 282m credits, 1.3m FXP (and every FXP prem I want that's released), decent stocks of coal and nearly enough steel for a T10 prem. The only thing of any real interest to me in the crates was a premium ship. No modules. No economic signals. No FXP. I was sorely disappointed.
  7. By the end of WWI, Italy had commissioned 6 dreadnought battleships and France had commissioned just one more at 7. At sea, it doesn't seem like Italy was particularly far behind.
  8. Well, I think you have me there. I had no idea the overall proportion would be so high, probably over discounting the (historically and in-game) largely useless deck armor. If she 'spent' a good chunk of displacement on armor then that's a solid vote for fast battleship, just an oddly aligned one. The US standards were optimized for ranged engagements with moderately thick angled belts and thick decks, Dunkerque just seems very extreme. At 16-17km something like a QE would start to stop belt penetrations by their own guns, by dropping to such a thin belt you give up that part of your immunity zone, even if deck hits are more likely. I'll respond more later if I get a chance, but well, I am genetically predisposed to believe in excessive French arrogance! It does seem crazy to take the view - on a ship that should last 25 years - that the Italians won't do much more than sit around with their old (lain down 1910 v. 1932 for Dunk) 305mm armed battleships forever....
  9. mofton

    The state of the Leone

    I've not seen much on Leone, but I've also not seen much on Yahagi or Viribus Unitas in a while - and they were announced at the same time. The Neustrashimy and Azuma have hogged more of the limelight, but that's perhaps natural given they're at more 'important' tiers. The Irian, Lazo and Wichita have also fallen by the wayside and they're even older than Leone.
  10. mofton

    Making the PEF not suck

    I could only suggest helping PEF the same way I helped poor ole grandma mofton, just take the pillow and push it down firmly. The clean way out.
  11. It's true that the French were somewhat behind the curve, but does it matter? Firstly, if you aim to build something (a fast battleship) but end up with something else that resembles more of a battlecruiser then does the intent matter that much? If I try to build a lunar lander but build a firework, it's a firework. Secondly, although Strasbourg is more heavily armored than the Bretagne class, Dunkerque has a thinner belt on an overall far better scheme. Neither of them are at all well armored for a 1930's ship, especially compared to the later superdreadnought designs. In the case of Dunkerque specifically I'd say the French could have manufactured a thicker belt, they just chose not to, and to spend tonnage elsewhere. The guns are similar, although a new design France had already built the slightly larger 13.4in gun. The British had never designed a 15in gun, until they did - based in part on up-scaling the 13.5in. I would be amazed if it were not within the capabilities of the French designers, especially as a 15in option was mooted for the Lyon design of 1912, and there was at least movement and detailed gun and shell drawings on a 450mm/45 Mle. 1920 (17.7in) rifle. As they were going to a new design either way, I'd say the option of going larger was on the table. I think France could have built a more traditional, more heavily armed and armored battleship for Dunkerque's size, they didn't, ending up with a relatively lightly armored, relatively lightly armed but exceptionally fast battleship, designed with hunting cruisers very much in mind - that sounds very battlecruiser-esque. Whatever the shortcomings of the TDS on the KGV's, the sinking of PoW is a poor example of it in practice. The fatal hit exploded aft of where the port outer propeller shaft emerges from its tube. The damage was less about local destruction, which altogether was fairly minor and more about the damage done along the length of the attached shaft and the flooding that caused directly into Engine Room B. The TDS does not cover the propeller shafts where they emerge from the hull, it cannot. That single hit, not only allowing progressive flooding of the engine room, knocking out power and exposing too many otherwise tight compartments to flooding doomed the ship alone. The 3 torpedo hits to the starboard side included one near the extreme bow, outside the TDS. One abreast B turret caused heavy damage, at least in part because the TDS void spaces had been counter flooded, reducing their effectiveness (though reinforcing your point on counterlfooding). The last, was fairly far aft again, directly in line with the starboard outer propeller which it knocked out - that one landed fairly high in the ship due to prior flooding. Of the 4 torpedoes, 3 impacted very near the ends of the ship, 2 directly in line with the propellers and 1 in the forward bow. Only one of them impacted and badly damaged an already counter-flooded TDS protected section, where it inflicted heavy damage against a compromised defense. I wouldn't much blame the TDS.
  12. Slim comfort to my radar-toting Minotaur! The little tickle of a concealment downgrade isn't major, but isn't a step in the right direction either. There are a number of reasons that you might see fewer of them, largely I suspect it may not really be the case beyond luck or a confirmation bias. There were 212,136 Minotaur games in Q4 last year, actually slightly up on the 199,929 in Q3, and despite fewer games in total being played - Minotaur became absolutely and relatively more popular. Things may have changed this January but overall I doubt it. Minotaur was one of my favorite ships, I have 343 games but haven't played since December and even then it was just to get a snowflake. I don't really want to take her out much at the moment - CB is on, I'm just not playing non-CB ships much and Minotaur is pretty unpopular in CB, I don't need to practice it outside of CB The proliferation of radar cruisers which overmatch her - fighting Stalingrad/Kronshtadt and (coming soon) Alaska isn't a winner Too much radar Too many carrier games - a possible resurgence in numbers there just cramps my style, I don't care that Mino has ok AA, being air spotted sucks
  13. Dunkerque held up poorly to the 15in shellfire she received at Mers el Kebir. In all Dunkerque was struck 4 times at about 17,000 yards range. Based on O'Hara's account: One hit on B turret roof knocked out the 2 starboard guns. One hit overpenetrated the hangar without exploding. Two hits penetrated the main belt, one failed to explode in a secondary turret shell handling room, the second exploded in 'B' boiler room, knocking out electrical power and causing the ship to be beached just 12 minutes later Dunkerque suffered 210 killed I don't think a direct comparison with Kirishima's damage is that useful however. Both demonstrated a pretty poor resistance to heavy shell fire, in the case of Kirishima the range and number of hits played a part, but 'overkill' seems a reasonable statement, despite being hit about 20 times by 16in rounds per the Lundgren analysis I'd read between the lines that just 2 or 3 of the hits could have been fatal, the rest were secondary. Hit No. 6 penetrating the main belt below the waterline plus a couple of Hits 2, 3, 4 and 5 that devastated the casemate and allowed massive following flooding would doom the ship. The damage was largely received at 0100-0105, and she sank at 0323, just over 2 hours later. Two hours is a pretty fast sinking for a capital ship struck by shellfire and not suffering a catastrophic magazine detonation. It's a relatively narrow field but the Lutzow took about 6 hours, the Bismarck took over 2 hours despite more hits, torpedo hits and the use of scuttling charges, Yamashiro sank quickly but was hit by 4-6 torpedoes. On the plus side, that does mean that Kirishima was fortunate, or solid enough not to detonate. In general I can't consider the rebuilt Kongo class to be fast battleships. The armor scheme is just not up to it. There was a general trend from WWI to WWII not to increase belt thickness that greatly, and instead to go for more deck armor, which was greater emphasized in Kongo's rebuild - as examples the British QE as built had a 330mm belt and 76mm main deck but the KGV had a 381/356mm belt and 152/127mm deck - a far greater proportional increase in deck thickness than belt thickness. Nonetheless I think Kongo's scheme is overall just too deficient in both belt and deck armor. Kongo's 80-120mm rebuilt deck still doesn't compare favorably to Dunkerque's 115-130mm. Aside from brute thicknesses Kongo is just miles more vulnerable. You can draw plenty of paths through pretty thin armor to 'somewhere shells should not explode'. Dunkerque generally protects her vitals better, with higher minimum armor thicknesses and a useful armor slope, and goes with an all-or-nothing design which may reduce damage - hits in the location of her casemate might have overpenetrated. On an armor basis I'd make more of a case for Dunkerque as a fast battleship of some type, though I don't think it's particularly strong for either. I certainly think that fast battleships can be on a spectrum from faster, lighter armored variants to heavier slower ones. However I think the core definition of a fast battleship, as unfortunately espoused by wikipedia is 'a battleship which emphasized speed without – in concept – undue compromise of either armor or armament'. Ultimately, although designed to hunt Deutschlands and cruisers they're not very 'future proofed' against an Italian battleship threat, or one from absolutely anyone else at all. France did after all have interests in the Far East. If Dunkerque's superior to the old 305mm gunned Italian battleships, well I'd say the mid-20's modernized Renown or Kongo probably would be as well, I'm not sure that that makes either battleships. The Dunkerque is relatively small but not tiny, they're about the same displacement as the QE class. On the same tonnage in order to get your extra 7kt or so you give up 100mm of belt armor and carry only 13in guns (even if great ones) instead of 15in rifles. That's fairly compromised on armor and firepower in exchange for the high speed. The 'concept' of being a suitable battleship for a very specific conflict with unmodernized Italian battleships and cruisers might work, but so would being a battlecruiser.
  14. I like speed. Any ship can be at least moderately survivable. It doesn't matter if you have 203mm of belt like Kongo, or 343mm like Colorado - once you're angled autobounce is autobounce. Even the lightest armored ships can do that, or shatter big HE on the belt/turret faces etc. etc. I can make my lightly armored, but fast capital ship more survivable due to angling and positioning relatively easily. What no player can ever do is make a 21kt battleship do 30kt and get somewhere useful fast.
  15. mofton

    re: Proposed changes to HMS Hood

    Vanguard pen is... the second lowest at T8. It's not miles behind Bismarck, but Bismarck's already far from the best. Her velocity is actually lower than Monarch with 15in guns, though higher than the QE's and Hood, but for whatever reason she gets far better Krupp (maybe Cardonald shells) and far better air drag. I'm certainly glad that WG will do some solid testing on it either way too.
×