Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

163 Valued poster

About Aristotle83

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Aristotle83

    Pacific war ships (Chile 1881-1879)

    I want earlier ships but I think Majestic and late 1890s is absolute limit the ironclad era needs it's own game cause things changed so fast so often. Could incorporate late Age of Sail as gunwise the last few decades of age of sail has more in common with ironclads than ironclads do with the pre dreadnought era onwards. WOWS and it's sisters are set up around the WOT formula and they're really all 20th century game, planes and tanks weren't around in the 19th century so only WOWS is in a position where it doesn't have enough room to expand. I do think early 1890s Chile CA's Esmerelda and O Higgins can fit at T1 or T2 as CA's they were pretty good. 2-4 8 inch guns,10-16 6 inch guns, good protection, 22ish knots. O Higgins good comp for USS Olympia. There's 4 tiers left for armored cruisers since 5 is where treaty starts and think thats enough for most armored cruisers. With BB's Mikasa should have probably been a T1 and I just see no room. Armored cruisers and pre dreadnoughts are the last frontier for this game IMO.
  2. Aristotle83

    [WIP] RN Battlecruiser Arc

    Only disagreement is the beginning think CB's should be paired with their BB equivilant and while the Germans didn't match their CB and BB calibers after Nassau and Von Der Tam the UK did. So IMO should be the 12 inche CB with Dreadnought and Bellerophon, early 13.5 inch CB with Orion at 4 etc. After that agree with everything you get up to T8 with G3 then they do fantasy for 9 and 10(would like N3s but N3s are BB's and don't think they'll give away a ship people will want for free when they don't have to). Princess Royal would be strong at T4 but I mean so is Orion strongest 4TP ships in the game with Kaiser and Konig 13.8 inch Mackensen with Bayern cause there's no 15 inch battlecruiser. CB's would only be OP at T3 cause the tier has been neglected.
  3. Aristotle83

    Russian Navy

    Their subs caused several of the bloodiest sinkings in history when the Germans were evacuating the Baltic. Not that those were battles but that's what comes to mind and I recall their subs were really capable for the WW2 era(though this might be cause they were building quality over quanity cause they didn't need many). While the Soviets were a great power unlike Imperial Russia this was solely based on their land army(pre cold war and above water units). In terms of non submarine naval power their peers were Spain and Argentina and the Kirovs were the heaviest surface unit the Soviets finished between the revolution and the 1980s. So unlike in WW1 they didn't really have many units for which the Germans would need to fight(and neither did the Germans really). In WW1 it was the opposite their fleet might have seen the most action of any belligerent between the Baltic and Black Sea as these were the least lopsided naval fronts.
  4. Aristotle83

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    Of the 7 great powers of WW2 Italy's really the only one that didn't have concrete plans for a next generation BB that were disrupted(Montana,A-150,Lion, H, Alsace,.Soyuz) so the high tiers of an Italian line were always going to require more fantasy/tissue paper ships. They were really the only one that built or planned to build their treaty allowance and called it a day without angling for afterward.
  5. Aristotle83

    Austro hungarian cruisers

    I want this badly but the issue is that Austro-Hungarian ships by definition are going to be low tier. Furthermore the best AH cruisers are armored cruisers which with the exception of Saint Louis(which has a CL battery) have been excluded from WOWs similar to the pre dreadnoughts cause they mostly had mixed batterys. Seconaries don't matter in WOWS(except mobile) and on pre dreadnoughts and armored cruisers they are a big part of the ships firepower. Besides low tier the main reason pre dreadnoughts have not been added seems to be the 4 gun main(and thus usable) battery and while there's some CA's that had a 6+gun main battery the Austro-Hungarian CA's main battery is in the other direction at 2 guns. Even if they had a larger main battery there also seems to be an aversion to guns larger than 6 inches at the lower tiers as the best armored cruisers with with large batterys of large guns particularly French and a few UK CA's were excluded. WG's starts pretending CA's exist only with after the Washington Naval Treaty at which point AH is gone. In terms of the other cruisers while there's less obsctacles they'd still be low tier and WG has not been willing to invest in low tier ships outside of tech trees since the early days of the game. T5 is the lowest tier they make premiums for(as they've created a pricing system where they can't make money at lower tiers) and they do that very rarely. Dreadnought is the only exception and Dreadnought is a special case because it's an iconic ship. The most likely AH ships to be added would be the paper BB Monarch as their the highest tier AH ship you could make and people have been asking for them for years. If subs get added can also see some of the latter AH U-Boats(some of the unfinished paper ones look pretty good) eventually getting in the game as part of a Euro line. If pre dreadnoughts get added someday Radetzkys are among the best and you'd imagine would be among those added. Another possibility that's crossed my mind is them doing a Hungarina themed VU rework with Saint Islan but besides Monarch there's nothing AH had that could be put above T5..
  6. The difference in speed wasn't that extensive 6-7 knots. The difference in strength size and construction was massive and the size is going to be more of an advantage to her than a disadvatange. Anyhow all ships were designed specifically to survive that sort of scenario and I don't know why we'd doubt their ability to survive a scenario because Titanic sank in a collision scenario it was just not prepared for because it was a freak accident. Warships especially BB's are so compartmentalized it's just very difficult for flooding from even the Titanics scenario to spread throughout the ship nm a more typical collision. Warships were specifically designed to absorb damage and stay afloat in wartime scenarios. The only peacetime scenario BB's were really vuinerable against was blowing up due to some mistake(which in WW1 might have led to more BB sinkings than actual combat).
  7. Well the front of a ship is specifically designed to deal with such collisions not just with icebergs but with anything. The typical case study is Arizona which survived a head on iceberg collission despite being about half the width and legnth of Titanic and being made of the weaker iron. Also in terms of torpedos we got to remember battleships especially in WW1 were pretty good at surviving those too. And quite a few ocean liners survived torpedo hits from U-Boats as well even if that might be more luck based. In terms of their inability to see the iceberg and avoid collisison what you're saying makes sense just saying it doesn't matter cause BB's would easily survive as the far more vulnerable Titanic likely would have with any changes to the collision it experienced.
  8. Taking damage isn't the same as sinking. Running aground is a different story as well. While I recall the Great Eastern was very watertight it was also built in the very beginning of the industrial age.
  9. This isn't how collisions work.
  10. Aristotle83

    Successful Ships vs Successful Designs

    We might love naval history around here but the honest truth is that not much happened in the industrial age and most surface units did not see combat against their peers. Thus a ship being the most decorated had more to do with being in the right place at the right time than any sort of merit. Let's look at Bismarck for example. It's Euro peers the Richelieus and Littorios were at least as good and IMO better nm the US and Japanese BB's which were vastly superior. But Bismarck was more successful than any of these ships because it got the chance to blow up a battlecruiser while most of these other ships never saw that sceanrio. Despite probably being the weakest in it's peer group it's the most accomplished(I guess it's debatable with Washington) because it just so happened to run into Hood. For example everyone could agree Bismarck was more successful than Yamato but everyone would also agree that Yamto is a vastly superipor ship. Being the best doesn't mean you're going to accomplish the most. Same is true of humans if the most talented person is in a less eventful time and situation they're going to accomplish less than a less talented person who faced more high stakes situations.
  11. The issue with Titanic wasn't the iceberg but the way it hit the iceberg. Historically there was no reason for a merchant ship to hit an obejct where it would scrape along it's side and thus the ship wasn't protected against said damage. But against damage shipbuilders anticipated mainly head on colissions(which included icebergs) ships that were far weaker, smaller and made of iron(opposed to 20th century steel ships) could survive as the SS Arizona did. Titanics accident was a freak accident and if the iceberg had hit the ship almost any other way the ship would have survived and even in the worst case scenario we saw IRL it was only slightly flooded beyond repair. Now in terms of battleships and warships in general they wouldn't have Titanics issue cause their designers were anticipating sideways damage whether that be from torpedo or from another ships gunfire. While on an ocean liner the side would be the least protected part of the ship on a warship it would be the exact opposite. Warships were very compartmentalized as well. They were warships their main purpose was to whether combat not the comfort of their crew. With ocean liners such compartmentalization would have made the experience much more inconvienant for their passengers as they'd have climb through a bunch of doors to access different parts of the ships. Navy sailors wouldn't care about that as they were sailors not passengers and warships were far safer as a result. Most battleships probably even of the pre WW1 era would survive Titanics accident. The WW2 ones would easily survive.
  12. Aristotle83

    What if Hood had Survived the Fight Against Bismarck?

    On paper Hood should have survived and Prince of Wales and Hood should have beaten Bismarck she was unlucky to sink. But while Hood would have had a better chance of preservation than any other Royal Navy ship given it's uniqueness(by far the largest RN ship and one that was quite beloved) the truth is for a large vessel that had value for scrappers the British didn't care about how historically important a ship was they just destroyed their heritage indiscriminately. Truth is Hoods sinking might be the reason it still exists as wreckages are an overwhelming majority of the large ships both war and merchant that still physically exist on this earth. If you're going to claim Hood would be different can't say for sure that's wrong though. While we might be trashing the US for scrapping Enterprise US's record for preserving it's large vessels is second to none(you can say that's a low bar given what they did to Oregon a so called "relic" for steel they didn't need). It just so happened to have scrapped it's most important one. I think if the UK had preserved 8 BB's, 5 CV's and 3 cruisers the sting of scrapping Warspite would be quite a bit more bearable.
  13. Aristotle83

    Armed Merchant Cruisers

    I'm not arguing you are wrong(in WW1 and later) emphasize much of this myself in my post speaking to what they thought at the time regardless of merit. The Admirality did commission large armed merchant cruisers even if they quckly changed their minds(Aquitania served for like a few weeks) and before that the Admirality did want armed merchant cruisers and they'd been subsidizing them for decades. From my readings this seems to have started in the 1880s during a war scare in the Middle East. And the Germans, French and US had all done the same thing. Russia had bought a bunch of passenger liners from Germany for the Russo-Japanese War. Lack of armor is inexcusable for warships but got to remember when the concept of AMC's came around cruisers were mostly protected and didn't have belt armor. Armored cruisers and CL's or Light armored cruisers change that calculation. There's really nothing an Armed merchant can do a light cruiser can't do in a much smaller hull and it's also got armor and more speed. In the 1880s and 1890s merchent ships tended to be as fast or faster than protected cruisers especially non British ones. By 1914 only a handful of merchant ships had a comparable speed to cruisers of any type never mind CL's. First off that Titanic story is a commonly shared myth. Olympic and Titanic were a bit faster than expected but there was never a chance Titanic could have broken a speed record, this difference meant the ship was about 3 knots slower than the record opposed to 5. The record Titanic was trying to break wouldn't be broken until 1929. The Blue Riband had gotten fast enough where the vibration interfered with passenger comfort most famously on HAPAGs Duetschland the ships whose record Lusitania and Mauritania broke, they actually replaced the ships engines to make it 6 knots slower . That is what the Titanic story was about getting into port the night before expected which the ship was on track to do. By that time most companies except Cunard moved away from building fast passenger ships, what White Star, CGT, North German Lloyd, HAPAG cared about was not being that much slower and adding extra days of travel and that's only cause they were directly competing with the Blue Riband ships. The companies other than that didn't even care about that the predominant speed of passenger liners that became AMC's predominantly went 16 to 18 knots. Now it seems backwards but earlier on merchant ships were predominatly faster even if the very fastest individual ship was slower speed records were feasible to achieve and ships were smaller and thus getting passengers quickly as possible and safely was the traditional priority. Most of the fast passenger ships that became AMC's in WW1 were from this time, Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, Kronprinz Wilhelm being prime examples. Among the British AMC's you had the Teutonic from 1889 which could go 20 knots which despite being the oldest ship in the 10th cruiser squadron was also the fastest. Oceanic which sunk in the wars first week was the only other British AMC that could reach that speed and it was from 1899. The Cunard trio and Olympic were the only British ships that could go as fast as an actual cruiser. And besides the Teutonic all those ships were either sunk or deemed unusable in 1914. First off Pedestal was only successful because of the context that only a few months were needed to drastically change the situation. Operation like that were unsustainable. In WW2 Armed Merchents had a role that was very different than cruisers. They were even slower because ships where the cost benefit analysis of resources versus return made sense were super slow, Jervis Bay who you're citing could only go 15 knots. Rawapaldini who went down similarily fighting the Scharnhorsts could also only go 15 knots. Royal Navy proper warships were also just rarer as were ships in general just a lot less likely to run into something other than a U-Boat while in WW1 warships were relatively very common. Yes any ability to fight back serves a value to convoys you don't need speed to fight something coming to you but like Malta distracting the enemy while dying so the whole convoy doesn't get sunk(while a lot of it does) is a last resort. Ships had no armor, guns unable to attack anything except U-Boats and other Armed Merchants. The original appeal in the 19th of using Armed Merchant cruisers was their speed to raid,enforce blockades and be competitive with the most common warships you'd run into like DD's and protected cruisers.
  14. Aristotle83

    Armed Merchant Cruisers

    Wouldn't go that far for merchants as whole. Remember this idea became a trend after the ironclad era in the 1890s and they'd been used in the Spanish American War and Russo Japanese War and were still seen as valued. At that time what private companies were building were comparable to cruisers in size and speed and later on cruisers and merchent ships became mutually exclusive. Fast 10k-15k ton merchant ships that could go 20 knots or faster would have remained very useful and the RN maintained slower ships up to 20k tons(probably where cruisers are without treaties) as AMCs. The handful of these ships that existed in WW1from earlier(Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse and Kronprinz Wilhelm) did quite well. The initial concepts value didn't change the ships being built to fulfill the concept did. In the 1890s it made sense for companies to build these sorts of ships. By late 1900s and 1910s it made no sense as that speed was expensive and their best ships had to be much larger to be competitive for a passenger liner. Hence why in WW2 you notice the AMC's used especially outside the RN are super slow because you could find merchant ships that size lots of them but you couldn't get them at a competitive speed.
  15. Aristotle83

    Armed Merchant Cruisers

    Sources say that the large liners would(paraphrasing) "would have eaten through the RN's coal reserves in 3 months". Now that factoid is lacking context of how quickly that's replenished/etc. Was fueling the ships literally impossible or just not worth it given what they were? In terms of size and tonnage must be remembered besides the battlecruisers there was nothing close to a ship that size that went that fast and there were never more than a dozen battlecruisers in the Royal Navy. 30k to 50k ton ships that went that fast might have been inoperable regardless of whether or not they were lightly armed cruisers. The private companies that ran them had far fewer ships than the Royal Navy. BB's of this period before the QE's were much slower and how often did they actually need to leave port opposed to ships maintaining a blockade? Either way the fuel consumption was clearly the main reason why those ships weren't used as AMCs. Of all the AMC's Olympic, Aquitiania, Lusitania and Mauritania were the only ones whose conversion was decommissioned/had their conversions stopped in 1914 and those were by far the 4 largest. But they weren't unique among the group in size, they also were by far the 4 fastest ships in that group. Celtic, Cedric, Caronia and Carmania were BB sized in length if not tonnage and weren't that much smaller than Lusitania and Mauritania(700ish feet). But these ships were also much slower in between 16 and 18 knots while all the larger ships above could go at least 23 knots. Oceanic could go almost 20 knots but it was one of the first ships lost in the war.