Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

38 Neutral

About Snowyskies

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Phoenix_jz has a really great thread for this: Although he hasn't updated it for some of the latest additions (RN destroyers, IJN destroyer branch). As for premiums the majority existed. This is an attempt at a quick list of the ones that didn't exist or existed but were never completed (ignoring anime ships). I may of course have overlooked some but it should be a reasonable start: Ishizuchi - Paper Iwaki - Paper Fūjin - A fictional Kamikaze-class destroyer Ashitaka - Laid down but scrapped due to the Washington Naval Treaty Kii - Paper Graf Zeppelin - Laid down and launched, sunk as target ship after Germany surrendered T-61 - Laid down and launched, destroyed by aircraft before completion Imperator Nikolai - Laid down and launched, ended up scrapped due to the Russian civil war Okhotnik - Paper De Grasse - Paper...ish, laid down but finished as another design Gascogne - Paper Huange - Existed, but not in the form it has in-game
  2. I haven't looked through any of this systematically like you but it definitely seems to have been part of it with the U-boats. I've read that RN submarines were dispatched to hunt/ambush specific German submarines. As for other theatres this is three examples from combinedfleet.com; So I do think it's an important factor. A potential problem for analysing it though is that you can't be certain that the intelligence intercepts are always mentioned even if they existed.
  3. Once again a great post mofton, very interesting. When it comes to Soviet mine sweeping effort specifically in the Baltic there wasn't only the air threat, the mine barrages were also covered by coastal fortifications. From e.g. Mäkilouto (Finland) the 305 mm dual turret emplaced there could fire all the way to Naisaar that's part of Estonia. Almost all the way to Aegna as well where Estonian 305 mm guns were emplaced. I'm a bit unsure of the status of the Estonian guns though, don't know if they were operational during the German occupation. Either way being under threat of heavy artillery doesn't help sweeping efforts. I do think it could be worth emphasizing the information disparity somewhat more. Knowing when and where an enemy submarine will be due to code breaking surely changes things, especially for submarine to submarine kills.
  4. Snowyskies

    Tier VIII Brit DD: Lightning

    True, that's also an oddity, though 12 to 10 isn't such a big jump. Here's my estimation of the time-to-distance values. Once again I can't and won't claim they are 100% correct but they should at least be somewhat accurate and give an idea of how they perform.
  5. Snowyskies

    Tier VIII Brit DD: Lightning

    The ballistics of Lightning's gun should be much closer to the ones on Jutland and Daring than the guns on Jervis are. The older British 120 mm/45 guns have arcs comparable to the US 127 mm/38 at all ranges. Both the 120 mm/50 on Lightning and the 114 mm/45 on Jutland and Daring guns on the other hand are only comparable to the US 127 mm/38 at short ranges while at long range they trend towards being equal or superior to the Japanese 127 mm/50. Well, without being privy to how WG calculates the trajectories I can't of course be entirely certain however that's my estimation at least. Lightning is therefore a very reasonable choice from ballistics perspective. Going from penta to quad torpedo mounts on the other hand isn't as ideal of a transition, even if getting better torpedoes helps.
  6. Snowyskies

    T10 UK DD Daring

    I can't state it as fact but by my simulation of the shell the 114 mm gun on Daring should at worst equal the US 127 mm/38 below 6 km, start having better time-to-target at ranges above 6 km and equal the Japanese 127 mm/50 around 12 km .
  7. Ah, I only meant the WW1 designs, not any post-war ones. Now granted the smaller cruisers that were under construction also had a turtleback. However from my reading of it, and I may be wrong on this, the planned future (Imperial) German fleet cruisers might not have had any turtleback either. Either way I can't add much more of worth on the subject, I can only look at the plans as found on dreadnoughtproject.org and conclude that at least on them there isn't any turtleback.
  8. The designs of the later battlecruisers and fast battleships (Große Kreuzer and schnelle Großkampfschiffe plans as can be found at http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf/) of the German Empire also lack turtlebacks. It seems only the normal battleship designs continued using a turtleback.
  9. Snowyskies

    [ Speculation] Will we ever see the USS Alaska??

    Your cross-section says it is at frame 103 looking towards frame 93 and from your overhead view you can see that it means it starts aft of the machinery space (103-97) and ends at the aft machinery space (97-93). It states that the outer belt ends at frame 99 but the reverse applies to the inner 3½ inch armor as well even though it isn't outright stated. It stops at frame 97 or in other words at the bulkhead to the machinery space. There is a space between the machinery space and the outer belt as well, yes, but it isn't the 3½ inch armored one. It's just another, normal bulkhead.
  10. WG really do like adding new bows, don't they. To be fair the Germans in WW2 also seems to have liked doing that kind of work as Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, some of the Torpedoboot 1935 ships, and several of the Zerstörers had their bow reconstructed. A pretty significant percentage of their navy all in all. Maybe WG just wants to keep up the tradition.
  11. Snowyskies

    Electrical power output of battleships

    Surely the main reason for the much higher electric power generation is the main turrets, period. The North Carolina that you used as an example didn't ship with any radar at all (well, maybe an CXAM radar, the sources I've seen contradict each other as to whether it was added in a refit after commissioning or if it was there already) nor any Bofors mounts. The British Vanguard on the other hand had a bunch of radar sets and Bofors mounts but used hydraulics to power the mounts.
  12. Snowyskies

    Feedback and Thoughts Directly to Pigeon_of_War

    Could the Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions section of the forum be opened up so you don't have to log in to view it? You can view the posts in all the other sections (and I mean all: News and Announcements, Update Notes, Public Test, Surveys, General Game Discussion, Team Play, Support, Discussions about Warships, Historical Discussion and Studies, Player Modifications, Foro en Español, and Fórum Brasileiro are all viewable) without logging in but not Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions. It's a minor issue of course but at the same time I can't see why it couldn't and shouldn't be done. It is a bit frustrating at the moment that you can't really link to any topics in that section on e.g. the European WoWs forum or on reddit because not everyone have NA accounts and are thus unable to view it.
  13. Snowyskies

    Bois- Nueve de Julio...?

    Which is an amusing example as Albany was originally ordered by Brazil and though Albany herself was never in Brazilian service the lead ship Almirante Barroso did. The almost identical and a few months older Ministro Zenteno (slightly different armament, could technically still be considered the lead ship instead of Almirante Barroso) was in the Chilean navy. It's not the same situation as Boise/Nueve de Julio but it is an example of a premium which very well could have been in the Pan-American tree instead.
  14. Snowyskies

    Possible Solution to Radar

    Considering the topics at hand in the forum I'd assume you are mainly thinking about radar jammers, but if you truly ask about electronic warfare overall then the question becomes pretty far reaching. Electronic warfare by my reading of it doesn't just involve the "offensive" parts such as jamming. Radar and radio communication simply on its own without anything interfering would already be considered EW. With such a wide net we'd be talking about the consumable Radar, the (presumably) radio communication between ships which allows sharing of enemy positions/own position/aircraft position, and the Radio Position Finding skill. Especially the (presumably) communication between friendly ships is pretty core to the game so I couldn't really answer anything but "Yes" to the question from that point of view. Now if you go with a more narrow interpretation of EW and only consider the RFD skill or a radar jammer consumable to be EW, well... then I'm more hesitant to answer yes or no. Specifically to the question about a radar jammer it would have to be shorter duration than the radar for sure and/or be a choice between it and another consumable, say, smoke.