RealNewDeal

Why would nerfs to lethality make BB players move up? Why wouldn't it cause more sniping as players want to salvage what lethality they have left? When I'm pushing I want to be able to kill what is keeping me from pushing fairly fast or else I'll get focused to pieces, why push when I can't anymore? Pushing is about mentality, adjustments like nerfing BB damage will only make the mentality worse. Also how would premium BBs fit then?

https://imgur.com/a/M5zYG#EVKUetf First one I could remember, I can find more if necessary.

Fix'd

The increased durability was simply due to it's massive displacement. If I remember correctly the Musashi suffered a single torp hit causing severe listing that I'm not sure but the North Carolina or another US ship took with much better results. The Yamato-class was known to have a flawed TDS system.

I can bring up many examples of 75mm M4s ambushing multiple Tigers and Panthers with great results and killing Tigers frontally. Anecdotes are noting compared to reliability, large field reports, logistical and ergonomic advantages. In war, practicallity triumphs over impressiveness. If you insist on an anecdote, Battle of Arracourt.

Someone said the Iowa class didn't do as much as Yamato and never fired at surface ships, was just proving that wrong. What about things such as the electronics suite, reloading times, and shell composition? Also does it have the same advanced urban armor upgrades the Abrams have?

Die

Took the info off the top of my head, read it in a book a while back. Various articles on Spruance besides those on Operation Hailstone will verify, Spruance personally led Iowa, New Jersey, and a few cruisers and destroyers after the 4 only ships that escaped and sank 3.

Iowa and New Jersey have shot and hit surface ships, only took a few salvos to sink too unlike Yamato's cross eyed shooting at Taffy 3. Was just after the Raid on Truk against Katori and some other ships.

Thanks, the main thing people forget about is how much something costs, how it is logistically, and how does it do the job. A good analogy is the F-35 and Jet fuel used in military vehicles. Sure using jet fuel for HMMVs and the Deuce sounds like a waste, but that simplifies the massive issue of transporting multiple fuels into simply transporting a single fuel for all needs. The F-35 loses out on other contemporary planes on aspects like speed and maneuverability, but has unparalleled advantages in the electronics suite and spotting abilities, along with the HUD that allows pilots to see their blindspots, things which are hugely important in any fighter engagement.

Thanks for the back up, as an interesting analogy look up well-documented Old West Shootouts. The trend in those is also who fires first.

I will gladly find info on Tigers getting blown up by M4s, but that's not that point. I use Arracourt to point out the failings of the German tanks even when used in large numbers against a supposedly inferior force. The Panther was a more modern, better tank than the Tiger yet failed epically at that battle among others. People need to stop looking at impressive numbers such as armor and pen and think practically.

As a certified baked potato Gremy captain, let me chip in my two cents. She would be an excellent choice in ranked, especially for saving a star as 6 person teams limit the amount of ships firing at her and allow Gremy to run wild. As for hunting other DDs she's good only if she catches them unaware due to the poor concealment. Her gun power and decent torps will make her a menace even to GC, but she's best run in a squad with another DD, preferably a very low concealment one this will allow for a Hunter/Killer squad that will neutralize any DD you encounter with disgusting ease.

Oh god not this ratio thing again. Read my posts before in this topic, the same things I outline about the Sherman vs. Panther vs. T34 apply to the Tiger also. If you want more proof look at the Battle of Arracourt or many engagement summaries of M4s knocking out multiple tigers with little to no losses. Also those high velocity guns sacrificed having good HE shells, which the 76 had allowing good infantry support. I obviously don't need to talk about a key part of battle, which is actually being able to get to battle without being broken down or lacking spare parts. They literally had to have armed guards on depots with replacement parts due to massive shortages.

I think it's of the opinion the Generals thought it would be like capturing Paris, without considering that Russia was a different country. I feel the oil fields would've simply prolonged the war, as they would've been at risk of any major Russian offensive and Germany would've had to fight the two front depending entirely on those oilfields, and that's before considering that Truman probably would've used Uncle Sam's Urbanistic Planning on Berlin.