Jump to content

red_crested_ibis

Members
  • Content Сount

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4911
  • Clan

    [KAPPA]

Community Reputation

56 Good

About red_crested_ibis

Recent Profile Visitors

236 profile views
  1. red_crested_ibis

    Alternate U.S. battleship line

    Thank you for clarification as well; did not know that they were originally intended to be those. I was just trying to be as clear as possible.
  2. red_crested_ibis

    Alternate U.S. battleship line

    The five Montana class battleships were ordered in the Two-Ocean Navy Act, and were designated the names and hull numbers: BB-67 Montana, BB-68 Ohio, BB-69 Maine, BB-70 New Hampshire, BB-71 Louisiana. Illinois and Kentucky were both laid down in 1942 (vs 1941 for the first four, as the two ships were funded via the same spending bill); they were, as such, laid down before the Montana class was cancelled in 1943. - Personally, I'd actually like to see the US Battleship lines split into two separate ones: One "battlecruiser" or "squishy BB" line, and the other being the Standard (or Slow) Battleship line. Split the line at T6, with the 10 gun 14" Lexington variant becoming the "main" line T6, with New Mex staying the Standard T6. Then have the 16" gun Lexington at T7, while Colorado stays at T7 as well (with Lex acting like Hood). Then, NC, Iowa, and Montana stay at their place at the main line, while on the alternate line, you have a paper Super Colorado (or incredibly buffed WeeVee) at T8 (there were many proposals for a 5x2 Colorado like ship). T9 would be the 1920 South Dakota, and TX would be whatever post-South Dakota design could fit in the game, as the Tillman designs likely push acceptability.
  3. red_crested_ibis

    Premium ships you would like be added

    USS Charlotte - T4 Post-historical refit proposals mid 1920s. Either artificially buff her 2x2 10"/40 guns, or refit her with 2x3 8"/55 guns as on the Pensacola. Speed increased somewhere between 25-28 knots as projected, and could be used for balancing. All secondaries on gun deck stripped leaving 4x1 6" and 10x1 3" guns on casemates and broadsides, respectively. Two 6" guns mounted forward of the A turret on open mounts. Either 4x1 6" guns or 2x3 TT on the sides. 1 Catapult on the quarterdeck with 1 aircraft. Either that, or go with an ahistorical refit - replace casemate and broadside guns with 4x2 6"/53 twin turrets like on Omaha, along with the 2x3 TT as well. Balancing such a ship would allow for the flexibility. The ship would function akin to a T4 Graf Spee - large caliber for its tier, mid 20 knot, noticeable secondaries and torpedoes that can't be ignored, large target, large HP pool, relatively weak armor due to obsolescence.
  4. red_crested_ibis

    Update 0.8.0.2 Hotfix - UPDATED (11/2)

    Biggest issue that I have with that is that there is so much more to a gun design than just its shell size. (The caliber of a naval gun is its length in terms of shell size, not shell size). The 5"/25 is a much less capable gun than the 5"/38, so why should the latter have the same damage as the former, aside from a shell size? If you want the New Mex and Colorado to have better AA, then they should actually get the Idaho/Maryland refits where they got 10x1 5"/38 and 8x2 5"/38. Then you still have progression over time as the ships get larger. I understand why there is a desire to standardize all damage to present a smooth curve, but at this point, Wargaming has managed to make the damage of the exact same gun different across different ships, as can be seen by comparing Atlanta or Helena to Baltimore or Cleveland. That, or Sims vs Benson. Heck, in the case of Benson, losing one gun makes its AA DPS go up as it magically gets better flak for reasons. Once Wargaming gets the DPS/Flak Damage of the same gun consistent, then maybe some tuning can be had, but in the terms of hit percentage and similar as presented before.
  5. red_crested_ibis

    Premium Ships and Soviet Battleships WIP

    I'll be honest - I'd probably use a T6 GC more often than a T5, as that allows her to be used in Operations. So, in that sense, it's more of a plus than a minus for me, personally. That being said... I dislike the change for what it means. Yes, WG is perfectly allowed to change their ships, as pointed out by many so far. And there have been drastic changes before (see Blys especially, and the Belfast/Kutuzov/etc removal), but those changes have always tended to come at the end of a global change in performance (the removal of stealth fire, smoke/concealment changes) that impacted every vessel. This... is something different, and targeted solely at a single Premium, that not only affects its abilities (a nerf/buff) but it completely changes the scope of vessels that it will face - for good or bad. And, once set, that precedent will always linger. Will this vessel I purchased to play in this Tier range was changed to another? Yes, this only should be opening up opportunities for this ship with Operations becoming accessible, but that doesn't mean that future changes couldn't be made in the negative for some vessels. So yes, I'm torn. Likely, it'd be better for me, but on the other hand, I wonder which ship would be next.
  6. red_crested_ibis

    Soviet Battleships Tiers 3-7 WIP

    Warspite's guns (using the 15" comparison) at 732 mps manage to make 13.582 km at ten degrees (according to Navweaps). Colorado's original guns would make 15.820 km at 792 mps. So, with Sinop's somewhat in the middle, that should make her unable to fire the B turret forward from ~14km out, being somewhat generous. I don't have Matlab anymore, so I can't perform anymore exact calculations. That would mean that the vessel should only be able to fire on the forward arc with both A&B when it is outside of its accurate close range region - instead, it will be able to fire at all times, given the ahistorical change to its OTL design. This is my biggest gripe - they have a built in design limitation that could justify buffs elsewhere, but they change it from that design and we're yet to see if that's been compensated for. It's kinda like how the US Standard BBs have the low speed ingrained in their design, so they can be improved by buffing elsewhere. Can't say anything about penetration as we don't know anything yet. If it's an older shell with poor penetration, that'd be good. If it's a modern shell (or if an upgrade gives it a modern shell) things start becoming real dicey... Sigma doesn't help, but it does have more barrels than most other warships at that tier, and the additional shot will mitigate it in comparison to many other vessels - what really is the balancing factor, I feel, is its RoF, which is rather poor. At most, I feel that armor protection will be exceptionally poor, along with poor AA and penetration is low as a way to balance it, seeing that WG chose not to follow the real paper design. And if it isn't... Well, at best, this thing will be the ugly stepchild of Hood and Nelson.
  7. red_crested_ibis

    Soviet Battleships Tiers 3-7 WIP

    My biggest problem is that the T7 warship does not actually maintain its similarities to the OTL design - it has a superfiring B turret. That alone makes the warship much more flexible than it would be if it actually conformed to real plans (a weakness that could excuse it being overpowered in relation to other lines). There should be a 50 degree window forward where the B turret shouldn't be able to fire save when the gun elevates more than 10 degrees. Instead, the superfiring taken away makes it extremely powerful. This ship would practically be the size of an Iowa, with the gun layout of one, with armor that as noted above is not particularly subpar - not necessarily great, but not terrible either. Its rate of fire does hamper it some, and its sigma is bad, but the dispersion isn't terrible and implied here (in the T8-TX thread): These ships have the possibility of having excellent accuracy across the majority of their firing range, only losing out on long range. So the midrange game will be dangerous. But, all of that taken together, with the guns possibly actually being more than decent and hard hitting, just slow firing, it risks the vessel simply being better than most other ships at its tier. As such, I'm really worried about power creep. This is about the same as putting a South Dakota or G3 at T7, reducing its accuracy some, and calling it a day.
  8. red_crested_ibis

    For operations: Arizona or West Virginia 1941?

    She's a Standard Battleship - if you know what you're getting into, I'll not mention speed - as it'd be the same issue that New Mexico would face as well. She can't help that so many other T6 battleships have been given speed refits above and beyond what they were theoretical capable of OTL, so the US vessels seem abnormally slow *cough Normandie Bayern cough* Regardless, the biggest issue is the sheer number of lower level foes you'll face, in which Arizona will tend to suit you better just because of greater number of shells that will hit and reduced penetration chance. The overmatch of Weevee's guns could help in some cases, but the majority of vessels will be too low of a level to care. Basically, what do you prefer in T6 in the stock battleships? Do you like New Mexico and want a Premium version, or do you prefer something punchier?
  9. Question: Does Musashi have her super fighters in the PTS? With this new system, could see her being one of the better AA vessels... 60 second cooldown with premium fighters could be amazing with this system.
  10. red_crested_ibis

    Exeter coming!

    Well... she's slightly better than Furutaka in the stats that are listed, I feel. RoF is quite higher, so even with lower Alpha Strike, she still has better DPM (in HE and AP), and that's with a longer range as well. Dispersion is slightly worse, even accounting for range, but is balanced out a bit by slightly higher shell travel speed. Torpedoes are a happy medium in damage, range, and speed compared to Furutaka's two options, and the single torpedo firing is a good option. Furutaka does have the quad, so higher torpedo chance, but still, single shot RN torpedoes are quite useful even so. The top speed is lower, but not atrociously so. Turning circle is tighter, but that rudder shift is sluggish in comparison to Furutaka. Concealment is 1.2 km better, though, so with a good captain (being a premium) she'll be better off in that regard. It's not listed, but the AA should be about the same, thereabouts. If she does get a fighter, it'll be limited charges, so smoke may be limited to 1/2 charges without buffs. That, plus repair party, gives her some staying power. So probably limited charges throughout. (with Premium + Superintendent, that will become less of an issue). Also, the bloom for firing the guns in smoke is 6.1 km, so that could be workable. - In all, a slower, but likely beefier (Repair Party) vessel that leans more on DPM than Alpha, doesn't maneuver as well, but might have slightly better armor to compensate. I'd say better than Furutaka simply due to its premium status and likely having better captains, plus a more comfortable main gun system.
  11. red_crested_ibis

    Exeter coming!

    Stats from the devblog:
  12. red_crested_ibis

    Exeter coming!

    That, or if the smoke gets nerfed away. That could actually be a pretty good safety net. Be a vessel that would teach new players how to play heavy cruiser and give them a bit of a safety net. If it stays, that is. But yeah, with smoke how it is anymore, it's not even that big of a buff. Could make her division real well.
  13. red_crested_ibis

    Alaska, an upgraded Baltimore

    Just going to quote this one as I don't want to break the table. Good post. I disagree in a few spots, that I will try to address. Iowa is definitely a fast battleship in my opinion. I just feel that she is closer to a battlecruiser than Alaska is. She meets the material and physical qualifications by being faster than most any other battleship afloat, by possessing standard battleship armament for her time and construction, and most importantly by being a capital ship. Still, she is too heavily armored for me to reasonably call her a battlecruiser, but she's certainly on the edge. My opinion is that battlecruiser is not a vessel that is intermediate between cruiser and battleship - it is a vessel that is on equal status to the battleship, with both the battlecruiser and the battleship being capital warships while cruisers are not. Dreadnought and Invincible were nearly the same displacement, with the latter trading some armor and a turret for speed. Move forward to the Queen Elizabeth and Renown, the vessels were nearly the same on standard displacement, with the latter trading some armor and a turret for speed. The main armament was the same as contemporary battleships, and so was displacement. Looking at Hood, she was certainly a battlecruiser, edging towards fast battleship (recognized by Admiral Sims and others as precluding a revolution in ship design), but she was the largest ship of her era constructed, certainly not intermediate between other battleships and such. The Lexington class was planned to be larger than the South Dakota by thousands of tons, trading armor and guns for speed. The Amagi were also larger than the Tosa being built at the time. That's where I get into this impasse about definitions. The battlecruiser being smaller than a battleship, unless I'm missing something, is a design that arises from the Treaty-Era designs. Regarding other battlecruisers and such, die may have been the wrong word. Hood was the last pure iteration of a battlecruiser constructed; everything else after that has quibbles (and even Hood is borderline) Lexington and Amagi are definitely as such. Dunkerque and Strasbourg do have the separate designs working against each other. This is hard to judge, as the 13" gun has no other gun to compare it against, but it is certainly smaller than the 14"-16" spectrum that had become the battleship calibers among the main 3 signatories of the WNT and further on. So, while the caliber is certainly larger than the arbitrary 8" defined by the WNT, it certainly is borderline battleship. That's why I would call them a small battleship, as they have reduced tonnage and guns on the low end of the battleship spectrum (noticeably smaller than anything built in a decade), but Dunk's thin armor makes the BC/BB issue very borderline - it does help that their foe would have been either the German or Italian Navies, not the US/UK/Japan, which means they're playing a completely different ballgame. I'm not familiar with the French designs you speak of, so all I can point out is that the 12" has been even further removed from consideration than the 13" as a main battleship caliber weapon by this point in time. It certainly would function as a good intermediate caliber, and would have to use battleship tonnage due to the terms of the treaty. The 16" vessels certainly do seem to resemble battlecruisers, but I would have to see armor/speed/other stats before I could offer anything aside from that. 1047 is another even more borderline example. The Scharnhorst's armor puts her square in as a battleship, so carrying an intermediate caliber, with thin armor and high speed, could push the Dutch design to that (the compatibility of the 11" vs the 15" reinforces that, as the ship would potentially be able to equip 3x2 15" similar to Scharnhorst). I'd have to look some more at the hull design, but if it shares a similar battleship hull form like Scharnhorst, then I'd stick it as a battlecruiser, as its roots would be from a battleship, vs cruiser design. The D Klasse, on the other hand, seems to be an evolution of the Panzerschiff to be balanced, rather than having terrible armor and sacrificing it for larger guns. The larger displacement vessel makes it better armored against its own guns while retaining all of its other characteristics. That still seems to make it a cruiser, as that is simply analogous to the armor growth between the early Tinclads to the later post-treaty cruisers, with ships becoming larger and better armored against their own weapons. The only difference here would be caliber of gun forcing more armor being added and more displacement being gained. Hopefully I'm referring to the correct design here. The O Klasse, agreed, appears straight battlecruiser. The RN vessels you've mentioned I've seen blueprints of once or twice. I'll have to dig more to comment on anything but superficial. Though, with that speed listed, and assuming they have a battleship hull form and construction, I'd classify them as small battleships, as they don't have cruiser speed. The Super Type A's and etc I'd call large cruisers - I find it compelling that both the US and the Japanese independently gave their 12" gun super cruisers the designation of cruiser (super type A being a larger type A, or 8" gun cruiser) for their vessels. As it stands, the Khronstadt would definitely count, considering it uses modern battleship caliber weaponry for its design (6 15" guns), would have a displacement comparable to post treaty vessels, had high speed, and would serve as a capital ship for the Navy it was being constructed for. The Italians did have some designs (some Panzerschiff like designs ~18k tons if I remember) and some other designs to try and fit more battleships into their allotted tonnage. The US/UK/Japan did not seem to dabble with them as they had the capacity to build surfeit cruisers (the US especially could have many 8" gun cruisers as per LNT limits) and had the economy to build more. (Arguable with Japan, but I digress). The French, Germans, Dutch, and Italians did not have the capacity, and in two cases, the treaty limits, to effectively have everything, so those nations would have had to do less with more - hence intermediate designs that would, while being utterly outclassed by full-sized battleships, would in turn utterly outclass the treaty-limited cruisers (Especially seen in the Dutch design, which was made to fight the hordes of Myoko/Mogami/Takao etc). So yes, this is where our points differ - I insist on battlecruisers being nearly the same displacement and status as battleships as many battlecruisers are as large, or larger than battleships that they were constructed with contemporaneously. This concept of battlecruisers being intermediate designs between cruisers and battleships does not seem to appear until the Treaty Period, in which no unambiguous battlecruiser was constructed (with some borderline examples, some perhaps battlecruiser, some perhaps battleship, some perhaps cruiser). The only exception I can find is the German battlecruisers, with tonnages still relatively similar contemporaneously (Bayern vs Derrflinger), but with the latter retaining number of barrels by reducing caliber. This does not seem to have been the practice followed by the British, the Japanese, or the United States when constructing and designating battlecruisers - the French WW1 proposals also had the main guns being of the same size as on the Normandie or, later, being enlarged to 370mm in design B. So, in the heyday of actual battlecruiser production, gun caliber and displacement remained consistent with contemporaneous battleships, with the exception of gun caliber and in that case only in the case of the German Navy. At least, that's what I can find. Trying to respond quickly here, so I might have missed something. - Referring to the armored cruisers and such, I'll also point out that Mikasa is one of the oldest designs, and she can be represented as a T3 cruiser in matchmaking because of that. Even so, armored cruisers were noticeably different in construction and purpose - and considering their thin armor, they could potentially be listed as T3, even T4 cruisers (Scharnhorst, the first one, the refit Tennessee). We are trying to shoehorn game conventions on vessels that are borderline here, though. It's kinda like the proposal to fit Alaska as a T6 or T7 battleship, despite that not being the vessels purpose. Either way, armored cruisers could be slotted into battleship slots because of superficial resemblances and armor layout thanks to their high displacement and low speed. - As for the treaty limitations mattering, they do matter - at the time of the WNT, while Britain was wanting to decrease in size, the US was wanting to increase. The US compromised heavily on the Pensacola design - as the design process went, the US had to settle, as it was, for a weakly armored, slower than expected, 9 or 10 gun ships. It had wanted a lightly armored, 35 knot, 12 gun vessel to start with. So we already see diverging tonnage trends. 10k tons was a compromise tonnage that satisfied nobody, followed by further clarifications later on. 8" was a compromise caliber, as the US desired a vessel that could beat the Hawkins, while the British were quite content to let it go to the wayside and let 6" become the maximum caliber from that point forward. We can see the trendsreemerging in the post-treaty era in the US - the immediate ballooning of tonnage to produce the more well-rounded Baltimore, not to mention the CA1 and CA2 design studies. I say that to point out that a gap in capabilities was created, as cruiser tonnages were not allowed to increase, or decrease, naturally, creating a vacuum where an intermediate size ship could easily be able to outmatch all cruisers in existence while being in turn outmatched in every category by contemporaneous battleships. - In the end, all I can do is point out what I view above, in how battlecruiser and battleships were, up until WNT cancelled them, almost universally linked in displacement and armament among contemporaries, with the exception of the German battlecruisers in armament (if I've missed any other trend, please point out). In the Treaty Period, the holiday and tonnage limit prevented the construction of full-sized battlecruisers or battleships, with only a small borderline category (Dunk/Stras, an example of two different categories potentially within one class). So I don't see a historical basis establishing battlecruisers as an intermediate class - of the designs you mention, a good chunk are straight battlecruisers by the equivalent definition (similar tonnage and similar weapons), with some proposed designs, never built, some never leaving the ideation phase) being of that intermediate displacement and caliber. No physical examples, with the example of Dunkuerque on a borderline case, ever were constructed. Of pointed note is that, as mentioned above, both the US and Japan referred to their 12"/12.1" cruisers as cruisers (either Super Type A or large), and not battlecruisers, making this not a case of the United States alone claiming a special cruiser type. Rather, it was acknowledgement that these ships were not, indeed, battlecruisers, but in both cases were enlarged cruisers, either from the Type-A or Heavy cruiser variety, that served a unique role that did overlap with some aspects of battlecruiser, but failed to be equivalent to its characteristics in the majority (not all) regards.
  14. red_crested_ibis

    Alaska, an upgraded Baltimore

    Friedman noted that they shared the same propulsion issues as held by the Cleveland class cruiser, as their designs were similar. Regardless, 33 knots was the design speed, and ~31.4 knots was the high speed achieved on trials. The difference is minor, of course. (it makes the Iowa stand out even more in how the latter exceeded their capabilities for certain) You are correct when I should have specified ranges. If knife fighting is a few thousands yards, then "medium" would be anything 5k-15k, just on the low end of the immune zone. Anything less would practically point blank. I did truly mean that it'd have to be close enough where the armor could be defeated. The RoF of the main guns, combined with the 5" and 3" being able to wreck the larger superstructure much more effectively than Alaska could in return. 5" (and even some 3" could penetrate some plated areas outside of the armor belt) would just assist in impairing the ability of any soft sections of the target. Of course, the Alaska would be able to return fire, so this close range engagement, unless very lucky, would likely result in both ships disembowling the other. All, assuming, of course, that the vessel could get that close. the 25km to 30km range is the only other one that Des could hope to operate in, but then you'd have to deal with incredible flight times and reduced accuracy. The Alaska would have to be 3 times as accurate in that range than the Des which sounds reasonable to me, for the Alaska to have a chance to land a shell at roughly the same time Des does. and since Alaska's shot is more powerful, it'll do more damage to the smaller vessel. So, to be honest, your best results would be a sneak attack in that midrange or Des being lucky enough near its max range to just hit Alaska more.
  15. red_crested_ibis

    Alaska, an upgraded Baltimore

    The only issue I have with that is that 11" guns had not been battleship caliber guns for nearly 25 years at that point - Nothing smaller than 14" had been battleship caliber. So 11" guns aren't necessarily battleship caliber - they are simply larger than the largest heavy cruiser guns allowed in the treaty system (8") On the other hand, 10" guns had been cruiser caliber guns even a few years previously, and were used on various monitors being built at roughly the same time. The 12" guns were used on very few old dreadnoughts and similar at this time, but only in auxiliary roles (see the Wyoming and Arkansas), and in nations that could not afford anything better. The 11" were powerful, yes, because they were a new design, approximately a generation newer than any 12" gun that had been built. As I have mentioned before, a generation gap in gun development means that smaller caliber weapons become inordinately more powerful. I'll also point out that the initial reaction of the US to the Panzerschiff is the desire to equip their new cruisers with 10" guns, which could be done on a 2 for 3 basis with the 8" guns (though requiring new design). On this basis, is a Northampton, equipped with 10" guns, using battleship caliber munitions? Nothing on the vessel changed, just the proposed replacement of weaponry. The 11" gun is stronger than a 10", especially considering its caliber (again, ignoring a new 10" would have had to be developed and would be much closer than the old 10"/40 Mk 3), but neither weapon is battleship caliber in an era where all first line battleships are using 14"-16" guns. The Germans, in the end, got it right, as the Panzerschiff were eventually reclassified as heavy cruisers (after Graf Spee was lost). I have elaborated on my dislike of the term (as it exists only to denote a cruiser equipped with guns of 8" as per the London Naval Treaty), but it is useful if just for ease of understanding when discussing. These ships simply trade for increased shell performance by reducing number of barrels, but they did not take a battleship caliber, in the sense of it being a modern battleship caliber (the last German ship to use it was the Nassau, built a generation prior to the Deutschland). It was an intermediate caliber, larger than treaty defined cruiser limits, but smaller than any frontline battleship caliber. Just my two cents. I do understand your point, in that the Germans were attempting to get the most powerful guns possible and exceed the treaty-limited cruisers. However, it just means that they are now intermediate weapons - almost worthy of a separate class of vessel (Panzerschiff works for this, or large cruiser). In real life, I'm not so sure. Alaska had propulsion issues, and Des Moines could control the engagement with superior speed (1.6 knots). With real life accuracy, the Des would have the advantage with volume of fire, as Alaska's deck armor isn't as impressive as her belt, and at the ranges Des would be forced to engage, her shells would be plunging. Not to mention that the 3"/50 could be used as a secondary in any knife fight (and probably should be a secondary gun in game...); as such, in the intermediate range, outside of 40mm, the Des would have a definite advantage. However, the Alaska can maintain range long enough so that, by the time she can "guarantee" a shot (1% chance, just for ease, or 100 shots in 5 min 33 seconds), Des would only gain about 300 yards (1.6 knot difference between effective speeds, or 0.9 yards per second). As such, Des can't close the gap unless Alaska opens itself up for all 9 guns while Des sails straight towards Alaska. Assuming 30 degree angle to fire, Alaska is still sailing away at 27.2 knots, or a 5.8 knot difference now, which means Des would only gain about 1000 yards without Alaska making a single shot. So, for Des to close from Alaska's maximum range to her own maximum range, it'd take 43.5 minutes and she would undergo 7.84 shots taken, assuming constant 1% accuracy (or 1 in 100 shells fired). So, in the open ocean, Alaska would win. But, in any situation that allows Des to get in close to medium range and take advantage of her volume of fire and her larger secondary/tertiary component, she'd come out ahead.
×