Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

342 Excellent

About DeliciousFart

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,519 profile views
  1. If Thunderer is largely a rehashed Conqueror, then how about giving it a reasonable citadel that can actually be hit rather than having the tops of the machinery spaces are slashed off like they are now for KGV, Monarch, Lion, and Conqueror?
  2. The Lion we have in game is actually the 1938 design, as evidenced by the given overall length of 239.3 m (matching the 1938 Lion perfectly), lack of bow shear, the aircraft hangers and catapults amidship, and a uniform 15" (should be 14.7" in reality) belt. The 1942 Lion would have had a bow shear (and increasingly overall length slightly to 241.7 m), removed aviation facilities, and thinned the belt to 14" (in actuality, 13.7") by machinery spaces.
  3. I'm honestly pretty baffled by this HMS Thunderer. Furthermore, I believe that all of the final British BB proposals were named Lion, and after the 1942 Lion design we're really wandering into napkin territory. Unless this ship is just a 1942 Lion with radar, in which case I would be sorely disappointed in WG's decision-making.
  4. With Yamamoto's improved Expert Marksman, Yamato will have turret traverse that's 175% her real-life value. Oh well.
  5. german H series battleships

    The German designation for gun length is not the same as the US Navy or the Royal Navy. For example, Bismarck's 15" guns are often cited as being 52 calibers long, but that measurement is for the whole gun from muzzle to the back of the breach. If you were to use the US Navy standard of using bore length for the length of the gun (a more accurate measure), then the gun is really only 47 calibers long. Similarly, the H-39 's L/52 gun is in actuality L/48 when using the US Navy standard of measurement. Furthermore, if you measure the muzzle energy of the gun, then the German 406 mm L/52 at 675 MJ is actually lower than the American 16" Mark 7 with a muzzle energy of 711 MJ when firing the AP Mark 8. When using muzzle energy as a measurement, it's interesting to note that the Italian 381 mm gun (639 MJ) and French 380 mm gun (566 MJ) both have considerably higher muzzle energy than the German 380 mm gun (537). The Italian 381 mm gun's muzzle energy is particularly high, hence its very good penetration competitive with even 16" guns. In fact, the Italian 381 mm gun has even higher muzzle energy than the American 16" Mark 6 (602 MJ) and British 16" BL Mark 2 (603 MJ). However, I believe both the Italians and French suffered from dispersion issues and gun liner life issues with their guns.
  6. german H series battleships

    True, but WG has given unrealistic rate of fire for certain guns before, such as the Aoba guns firing twice as fast as in real life, but sometimes you have to make concessions for gameplay and at least a 24 second reload isn't as big of a stretch as some of the other ones. I can somewhat understand WG's rationale though, as H-41 would be utterly uncompetitive at Tier 10. That said, they decided to give the FDG (which is the H-39 hull) the option to use H-41 guns, but the hull (even the upgraded one) is still the H-39.
  7. german H series battleships

    To be honest, given how Republique has turned out to be viable, maybe the actual H-41 design with buffed reload of 24 seconds (or faster) and good accuracy might've worked out. Of course, there's still an issue of 420 mm guns only overmatching 29 mm plates.
  8. german H series battleships

    That is literally a fake fan sketch that does not even correspond to any conjectural studies. If H-42 to H-44 are just rough conjectures that's little more than pipedreams, then this "drawing" is used toilet paper. If anyone uses this as a serious proposal, then I seriously question his/her credibility regarding Kriegsmarine matters.
  9. german H series battleships

    Erich Raeder didn't "design" all of the H-class proposals. As the head of the Kriegsmarine until 1942, Raeder would have large influence on the operational requirements that would result in the H-39 and H-41 designs. However, anything larger like H-42 to H-44 are pure conjectural studies that the Construction Office of the OKM didn't even play a part of.
  10. german H series battleships

    You already have an H-class battleship, it's the Tier 9 Friedrich der Grosse, which is the H-39. The Tier 10 Grosser Kurfuerst combines various aspects of different H-class design proposals and is already pushing the realms of possibility. Anything larger than H-41 aren't even real designs, they're just conjectural studies that don't deserve to be considered the same as a finalized design like Montana, 1938 Lion, H-39, Ibuki, etc. That battleship sketch you posted earlier is literally a fake napkin drawing that doesn't even correspond to the hypothetical H-44 dimensions.
  11. german H series battleships

    Before people get carried away by their fantasies, let me remind you about something that's not often said about the H-class battleships. Furthermore, from INRO No. 4, 1974 issue: So no, the H-42, 43, and 44 aren't some "wonder weapon" designs; in fact, anything beyond the H-41 aren't even designs, they're purely conjectural studies and guesswork and don't deserve to be consider the same as a serious finished design like Montana.
  12. As far as I know, it was only TF 38 aircraft that struck the Center Force on Oct. 24 in the Sibuyan Sea and destroyed Musashi, while Japanese land-based aircraft managed to sink Princeton. Halsey did deliberate for about 2 hours before dispatching TG 34.5, though that may partly have to do with the destroyers' fuel state as well. I'll have to check on that.
  13. T7 Helena vs T6 Cleveland

    As far as I can tell, the Helena has the same range and shell characteristics as the current T6 Cleveland, while DPM will be slightly better due to nearly the same reload while having an additional turret. The armor and citadel placement remains largely the same while health pool is reduced by about 2,000. The turret traverse speed is considerably better with a 22.5 second time for 180 degree turn compared to T6 Cleveland's current 32.7 seconds. This means that you probably can enter a full turn while keeping guns on target. Helena's concealment is actually considerably better, as you can get down to a minimum of 10.14 km concealment compared to T6 Cleveland's minimum of 11.35. Ship-to-ship, I think Helena will represent a decent upgrade from the current T6 Cleveland, at the cost of seeing T9 ships sometimes.
  14. Firstly, the composition of forces that I describe above were not arbitrary; they were in fact what the two forces were actually composed of in the early morning hours of Oct. 26, 1944, just prior to Center Force's withdrawal into the San Bernadino Strait. More specifically, I chose these forces because they were the most realistic composition if the two had actually faced against each other in the historical context of the battle. To consider a Center Force at full strength, you would have to rewind the clock back by two days, before the Battle off Samar and even before Battle of Sibuyan Sea on Oct. 24 which resulted in the loss of Musashi. But if a full strength Center Force was bearing down on the San Bernadino Strait on Oct. 24-25 and the Third Fleet did not chase Admidal Ozawa's decoy Northern Force, then you would see the entire TF 38 (5 Essex-class fleet carriers, 5 Independence-class light carriers, Enterprise, 2 Iowa-class, 3 South Dakota-class, and Washington) guarding the strait. Even if you assume that Admiral Halsey would split off all of his carrier task groups (a completely unrealistic proposal that would violate American doctrine, but for the sake of discussion let's assume he does it), you're still looking at a TF 34 which consist of the 6 aforementioned battleships, 2 heavy cruisers (New Orleans and Wichita), 5 Cleveland-class light cruisers, 6 Fletcher-class and 2 Bagley-class destroyers. And even in this optimistic scenario (for the Japanese), you then need to present a convincing argument that Halsey would detach his carrier task groups and split his forces under this hypothetical scenario. In summary, if I wanted to I could've stacked the deck significantly more in favor of the American force, i.e. bringing the entire TF 34 (or better yet, the entire TF 38) to bear on the Center Force. It's amusing that you see my attempt at giving the American and Japanese forces as much realistic parity as historically possible as an act of American jingoism...
  15. How about adjusting T10 matchmaking such that in any given T10 match, 75% of all ships are T10, with the rest populated by T9s, and prevent T8 from matching against T10. Just a thought experiment.