Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About pwimbs79

  • Rank
    Seaman Recruit
  • Birthday 05/23/1979
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
  • Interests
    politics, debate, video games, military history (preference heavily towards naval history), reading, research, and criminal justice.

Recent Profile Visitors

304 profile views
  1. I do have the above mentioned ships especially the two Jean Barts. Jean Bart is an excellent credit farmer but it has its limits. I am looking at the Bourgogne because she reminds me of the Ohio which is a superior version of the Montana with exception to its speed. Bourgogne is superior to Jean Bart and a more advanced ship like the Ohio.
  2. I have never posted on the forum so this is my first post. After this holiday event, I will have enough steel to get my first steel ship and I narrow it down to the Bourgogne or the Stalingrad. I have not made up my mind which one for these reasons. I am a player who like capital ships I have looked at both the Russian and French capital ships premium-wise. I have not committed to the Stalingrad because of the Rossiya, and Slava (though I do not play the Slava as a sniper (I hate sniping ships)). The reason I have not committed to Bourgogne because of the latest premium battleship, Flandre at Tier 8 (I am aware of the Pan-Asian version of the Alsace) is currently in testing. My issue with the French premiums sits with the two Tier VIII BB premiums which has not done well to compliment their tier line counterpart, Richelieu as the Tirpitz (Bismarck) and Massachusetts and the Alabama (North Carolina) has done. I am hoping that the Flandre will finally do that. If Flandre overtime shows that she can be that premium counterpart to Richelieu then I will pass on Bourgogne and go for the Stalingrad. I am looking for a capital ship in the event I need to regrind a battleship or cruiser tier line that I have a reliable ship to fill multiple gaps to do credit farming and from time to time XP farming. Plus I enjoy knife fighting in battles show a ship that can hold her own is a plus. Which steel ship should I choose Bourgogne or Stalingrad? I thank you all for your replies.
  3. pwimbs79

    The new ship announcement is infuriating

    When I look at the Flandre I see a redesigned Richelieu after the French got news of the Regia Marina's laying down the Vittorio Veneto class battleships. I see a premium French battleship at Tier 8 that finally steps in and be that premium battleship counterpart to her Tier 8 battleship compatriot (Richelieu). WG for its efforts and (failures I might add) has not produced an effective premium battleship equivalent to Richelieu at Tier 8 such as the Bismarck (Tirpitz), North Carolina (Massachusetts and Alabama), and lastly the Amagi (Kii and to a degree the tier 7 battlecruiser Ashitaka). Jean Bart at Tier 9 alone has more popularity than Gascogne and Champagne for which we all know why. Tier 8 for French premiums battleships have not been the best. Dunkerque has her uses as well but she along with her upcoming sister the Strasbourg (we have yet to see) will be considered more useful than their uptiered Tier 8 cousins. Flandre, (barring WG does not nerf the you know what out of the ship) can be that ship that everyone likes it may not have that splash like other Tier 8 battleships such as the Massachusetts and the Tirpitz but Flandre can be an useful asset but for now it remains to be seen. We can only wait and see for now lets take in the news and hope nothing drastically happens that will continue the failed streak that produced the Gascogne and Champagne. Gascogne for the record was planned to be laid down but due to the events in May and June 1940 the plans to lay down Gascogne and Clemenceau (similar to Richelieu and Jean Bart) never came to fruition.
  4. This design should have been the New Mexico class and this design was an attempt to increase the main battery to 16 inch guns to counter the Queen Elizabeth class and the Bayern class battleships. Unfortunately, Josephus Daniels who at the time was Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of the Navy vetoed the design and ordered the New Mexico to mirror the Pennsylvania class but add a clipper bow and have each 14 inch gun individually sleeved. This ship would be the prototypical overpowered Colorado at Tier 8.
  5. pwimbs79

    ST 0.9.7, American battleships

    I have read comments on the new techline and a lot of mixed reactions after the announcement. My input is strictly historical to add clarity to the announcement. As stated in the announcement the statistics of these ships are subject to change. First and foremost these new tier VIII to tier X battleships are not Standard type. The Standards were created for two reasons, 1. The Wilson Administration did not believe in spend enormous amounts of money on its Navy. Keep in mind there was a naval race ongoing at the time. Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels put in with the help of Congress ship parameters to keep cost of ship construction (especially battleship construction) low. For example, Battleship 1913 according to Friedman's Battleships there were six battleships designs displacements of 31,000 to 39,500 21 knots (two 6-16, two 8-16 in and two 10-16 inch gun) were considered and an increase in armament to 16 inch (406mm). Daniels vetoed the design and the increase ordering that the design mirror the Pennsylvania class except that a clipper bow be added and (do not quote me) that the 14 in (356mm) guns be individually sleeved to avoid one hit taking out the turret. As we all know Battleship 1913 became the New Mexico class (Idaho, Mississippi, and New Mexico). 2. According to Joseph Czarnecki's report found on NavWeaps.com, the standard type was a homogeneous force built to be one battleline. Naval strategists saw the standard type as one unit of ships fighting as one battleline. The problem is that other navies had slow and fast battleships formed in a battleline the faster battleships would leave the slower ships behind. The standard type prevented that plus on top of this the Standard type fulfilled its purpose based on ship comparison with other fleets. The Standards despite their speed deficiency was either on par or superior to other battleships on paper. For example, Queen Elizabeth and Royal Sovereign classes vs. the Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Tennessee classes of battleships stacked on paper QEs and the Rs had 8-15 inch guns while Nevada 10-14 and the other three 12-14 inch guns made them equal to one another. Another comparison are the Colorado class to the Nagato class one class is faster than the other due to sacrificing protection for speed but the guns are same. The Tillman designs brought forth by Senator Benjamin Tillman to have the maximum battleship to be built. According to Friedman's U.S. Battleship there was a chapter in the book that spoke volumes "Alternatives to the Standard Type". The title speaks volumes and naval warfare was evolving the days of the Standard Type was waning. The Tillman study only added fuel to the fire that it was time to do away with the Standard type. The South Dakota class was that first step with its increased speed of 23 knots which would have been the test that would lead if successful to the other battleships with improvements based on the South Dakota class. The USS Kansas with its wishbone funnel is a South Dakota class battleship and she is not a part of the Standard type due to its increased displacement, armament, and speed. The other two ships are studies based on the Tillman designs as noted in many posts but the 23 knots for Tiers IX and X are historically inaccurate at best and in due time will reflect the design as suggested in many post. I do agree with the Kansas's position at Tier 8 as the North Carolina her Tier 8 counterpart per the NC's description, "The first U.S. battleship of the new generation." The Kansas would be just that setting a new chapter for the U.S. Navy, A ship that is a successor to the Standard type with the same armor scheme, but with increased displacement and increased speed. In closing, I welcome the new tech line but as others have stated there will be changes made before it reaches the live server. Links to the Czarnecki's report: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.php http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7247 The link above is to a post on a forum the subject of the post is on Battleship 1913 and the images I am posting is to support my research on the subject. I apologize for the length of the post but I wanted to be accurate in explaining the issue, give a clear historical definition to the Standard Type and the reason for its creation. Please commanders feel free to comment and you all have a good day. The following images: The proposed designs for Battleship 1913, South Dakota as designed, and South Dakota modernized.