Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aa'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 69 results

  1. Count_of_Serenno

    Subs need Guns!

    Submarines have there AA and secondary guns turned off because they do not a have a High enough caliber. But thats not true they have the same caliber of destroyers of there tier and its better to do some damage then no damage. Carrier will be another major threat to surfaced submarines and most submarines have 2 AA guns, they are not ment to shoot down the hole squad they are met to do some damage, to deter the plane from flying over the submarines. If you agree leave a message Thanks you!
  2. Aircraft carriers are extremely underpowered. There aircraft are weak in both armor/HP, accuracy, and armament. The armor of aircraft is non-existent. There health pool is very low as well. Ship AA is easily able to destroy a squadron of fighters before a single attack is launched when multiple ships are together and only one attack can be launched when a ship is by itself. Destroyers are the only reliable target for carriers as they have a low AA defense, but are nimble enough for 90-100% of the attack to miss, and the 10% of the time that if does hit, typical damage is around 700 for rocket attack planes, 900 for dive bombers, and 1000 tor torpedo planes. For armament I will start with Torpedo planes. Why are carriers the only class of ship with an arming distance on there torpedoes, Destroyers can launch torpedoes onto the deck of another ship and kill them instantly, while CV torpedoes deal 1,400 damage and maybe a flood on a cruiser. The same torpedo on a destroyer of the same tier does 11,733 damage, while the carrier torpedoes do 5,567 (Ranger compared to Farragut) in fact the tier 2 destroyer the Sampson's torpedoes do 5,900 damage stock. The dive bombers do the most damage with 9,200, but there accuracy leaves mush to be desired. From a fully "zoomed in" attack from bow to stern, 2/3 bombs will hit. the 3rd bomb is teleported outside the aiming circle and is dropped in the water, regardless of the circle being inside the ship. rocket attack planes are fast, low HP and are very inaccurate. This is realistic as they are dumb fire rockets. and I have only one complaint at that is the arming timer, why must I wait to fire my rockets? I wish Wargaming would buff carriers and/or nerf AA.
  3. I've been playing the dogs out of Kaga for the past few weeks. Trying to get better. I have a good number of matches in her (148), 1502AD and avg DR of 2.0. Average, maybe slightly below. Damaged caused to reds at 8.1M. So so. But I can tell this morning, just starting today, the AAA(AA) is freaking insane. My average damage to ships is 54,777. In a Tier X (ix and x with a bismarck, nc and myself as the lone t8's) I earned a whopping 28K damage to ships. The Halland when built is exceedingly OP in the AA business. Exceedingly. Rockets and dive bombers? Forget them, vaporized. Torp bombers can approach for one drop, that's it. In contrast to normal Kaga business, I found I was losing planes during the TB run. Everywhere I went to attack my planes were obliterated. So... May I suggest you dive into your spreadsheet data to see just how OP the AA is on ships like Halland? They are almost untouchable by air. One would think attack planes, which can travel faster, would at least be able to reach the ship. Nope. Alternatively, I'm suggesting (again) you revise carrier tiers to play from the top down, so that T8 will see 8/7, T6 sees 6/5 and T4 sees 4/3. Cause T10 carriers are outrageously expensive to play (I have all of them) but hey, they are always top tier, right? Maybe just some buffs to Kaga's planes, otherwise? It's going to be very interesting to see how the German carriers play this game with AAA(AA) against ships like the Halland. tia
  4. The title gets across the gist of it. As I'd imagine a lot of you know, the two most widely used and effective AA guns mounted on American ships during WWII were the 40mm Bofors and the 20mm Oerlikon. I'd also imagine that a lot of you know that those were Swedish and Swiss guns, respectively, purchased by and built for the U.S. military. The question I have is this: Why go to foreign designs? I'd imagine that it wasn't cheap for the States to get their hands on these designs, and that money possibly could have been used to improve the U.S.' existing AA designs or to come up with new ones entirely. Likewise, selling weapons to the Allies must have presented a terrible risk to neutral Sweden and Switzerland. By 1941 both countries were completely surrounded by Axis territory (since Finland joined the Axis when Operation Barbarossa began), and the pretense of stopping the selling of weapons to their enemies would have presented a golden opportunity for Germany and Italy to invade. However, since I know I'm not even close to the most well-versed history buff here, I now turn over the mic to those among you who are: Why did the United States purchase Swiss and Swedish AA guns and their designs as opposed to trying to improve on/create their own? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my question. Sincerely, 1Sherman.
  5. mundaneken

    AA is Broken

    The practice of pitting tier 8 CVs against ships with tier 10 AA is not only completely broken but unrealistic. I sent all three types of planes against a tier 10 DD trying to cap our base, and all three type had their entire squadron shot down before they could get a single shot off. This ridiculous mismatch and inability to shoot most tier 10 ships happens in every game I’ve played in such circumstances. There’s no way a single DD could do that in real life, and it’s utterly frustrating and demoralizing for the CV player.
  6. I am dead serious about tier 3 and 4 ships needing higher AA DPS values, somewhere on par or just short of the tier 5 ships. ( ~10% less then tier 5 per tier ) Here are: "Baby seal pelts for the spreadsheet God" if that is not sufficient i will have to "procure" some more. P.S. Yes you are seeing it correctly 187k~192k damage with torps only, while losing 15 planes total.
  7. Howdy sailors, first off hope your all doing good and are healthy! Now, I'd like to suggest a buff to the AA guns Mod 1! Reason being is because 1: In its current state it literally doesn't do anything to inspire players to pick it over other mods in its catagory. and 2: even with sector aa activated, it does little to help protect against air attacks to begin with, thus making this buff all but useless which is why I'd like to ask WG to please consider either giving it a +10% damage per second buff or a range boost buff of .5 Km. or maybe even both. What's your thoughts on the matter though, what buffs would you like to have on this equipment? or do you think it's fine as is? please comment below! until next time, I'll C'ya on the Seas! P.S. please check out my USS California Event Thread Suggestion and maybe leave a comment on there as well!
  8. Granted, the British did it in the span of a few months and it took me since Open Beta, but still. Pretty fun. The Atlanta was the first premium ship I ever purchased way back when, and has she been power crept into near oblivion? Absolutely. But is she still fun? You bet. And the 'Splinter Camo' version on the Modstation is pure awesome. 07 to all my stalwart Atlanta Captains.
  9. Give them a separate consumable slot for DFAA. is is a much more comprehensive way to address the power creep they have experienced than buffing their reload, and makes them actually viable as AA cruisers again.
  10. Okay, I've really hit my breaking point on people using AA ratings and bringing them up. If you look at the AA ratings, it's such an obscure number with so little meaning you think your AA is one thing yet you slaughter or get slaughtered by planes. So I'm going to give an overly simplified way to get an idea what your going to do to a CV's planes but it will require math on your end (unless I figure out an easy way to do it on a google sheet and/or people are willing to donate cash for the amount of time it will take me to run through every ship, CV, possible setup) Simply put what truly determines if your AA is good is how long planes are in your AA, and how much damage is done every second. It's why Kremlin at tier 10 outperforms Montana at downing planes, and Yamato seems pathetic. longer range is better and obviously, more damage is better, but truth be told you want both. Also, these are a general guideline - not insanely specific numbers (some planes will be faster, slower, more HP, less HP). Tier Speed (km/s) HP per plane 10 .5 km every second 2000 8 .45 km every second 1800 6 .4 km every second 15-1600 4 .35 km every second ~1400 So lets take Benson, tier 8 USN DD and put it against a tier 6 CV. You have the B hull, no flags/skills/modz. Long range is 5.8 km at 77 damage every second, short range is 2 km at 60 damage every second. Tier 6 average is .4 km and 1500 HP on the low end. Your long range AA will fire at them on the way in 14 times at 77 damage, and short range 5 times at 60 - roughly 1378 on the first attack run, just short of knocking a plane down. The C hull while taking away a little from long range and a lot from short range adds 49 DP at 3.5 km, meaning 8 seconds of damage - the overall change being an increase to 1525 - a better chance you down a plane in the first pass. Obviously DFAA (50% more damage) and sectors (varies) increase or decrease these numbers, but that is your rough baseline of what your ship can do against a CV of the tier without you doing anything. For any who want to do all the math for the most specific numbers - aircraft damage = AA Range/([plane speed in knots*2.6854]*1000) * DPS. The first part gets you time in AA, and then you multiply it by DPS number for that range. It's also a good idea of how long till a CV can hit you again - and to track them down by range. The number in the chart are if a CV can maintain maximum speed on planes (usually done on attack runs) - so generally, if a CV is hitting you every 90 seconds and is tier 6 - odds are he's roughly 6-9 grid squares away in the direction of the planes. Basically while there is some map size overlap - takes roughly 10 seconds for plane at a tier to cover a grid square in their tier range at top speed. That little chart is easier, and while not perfect - will give you a far better idea just what your AA can do against a CV than the nonsense port rating ever will.
  11. After a brief search seems the strongest AA at tier 4 is on Giussano, maxing her AA is enough to hurt t4 squadrons badly?
  12. G'day all, Just curious as I have not heard or read about this before...despite archive searching and talking to mates. I assume it is uncommon to shoot down Allied planes though I am curious if it had happened to anyone else or it's more common than expected ? I apologies in advance if this has been covered before. Happy Hunting! o7 cheers Mort
  13. stop maneuvering to sink a CV? I am chasing down an Implacable in my Z-39. The Z-bote has great torps and decent AA but her guns are the slow-firing 150's and they take their good old-fashioned time to turn. When I started the chase both of us were at full health. I am trying my best to survive long enough to put the CV down and a team mate pipes up with IMHO I could NOT stop maneuvering and expect to survive to sink the CV. If the CV was just a bit better none of my maneuvering would have worked , either. I had a bear of a time keeping guns on target but the outcome was inevitable. We had two caps and time to make up the difference unless the CV would've sunk me first. It seems to me that some peeps are clueless to what it takes for a DD to solo-kill a CV that is actively trying to take you out. If only I could put them in my shoes for the moment... This was a great game, BTW. One of those that make you sweat the details!
  14. some of you may notice, the AA fire through the islands is bad for those who play as carrier in the game
  15. In response to the introduction of the British Royal Navy light cruisers line with two high tier light cruisers turned out to be purpose-built anti-air defense light cruisers designed in the 1950s before the realization of Tiger-class cruiser, it prompted me to even considering to place forth this small branch of Soviet light cruisers excel in engaging aerial threats, to give it a shot, and to give Sverdlov-class light cruiser another shot as a feasible alternative choice of Tier VIII standard cruiser – branches out either from Project 28 Shchors-class or from Chapayev-class. From Sverdlov, there it begins the extra two cruisers specialized in aerial combat & defence, just like how the new Japanese destroyers line turned out to be as well. 2019 update: In between mid-2018 & early-2019, the US Navy has its cruiser line reorganized with heavy cruisers & light cruisers split, came along with the introduction of light cruiser branch. Branched out from Omaha-class, the US Navy's light cruisers line consist of Dallas, Helena (cruiser St. Louis rebuilt based on Brooklyn-class), Cleveland (re-tiered from Tier VI to VIII), Seattle (further development of Cleveland) & finally the Worcester-class. Furthermore, an additional two Japanese air defense destroyers which based on the Super Akizuki-class project were also introduced - Kitakaze & Harugumo. Until recently, both the French postwar anti-air cruiser Colbert & the Soviet air defense "Small Light Cruiser" MLK-16-130 Smolensk are announced to be a Tier X premium light cruisers. As such, the revival of this thread shall undergo a thorough amendments & updates. Concept & Background Protivovozdushnoy Oborony (PVO for short), or literally anti-air defence in Russian translation. By the Soviet’s concept in PVO, it represented the Soviet military’s vanguard deterrence against aerial threats on both the frontier of Soviet defence borders and within the nation’s territory itself, through frontal aviation defence and anti-air defence on surface with combined installations of artilleries and heavy machine guns from both naval and ground force detachments. Unlike the Western counterparts, the Soviet’s PVO forces was formed as a distinguished military branch of the Soviet Armed Forces since 1948, possibly for the ease of rapid response strategic management. Based on the history recorded, the air defense detachments from all Soviet military branches played a significant role in its defense against numerous German Luftwaffe’s air raids on the USSR territories throughout the WWII. Thanks to the competency of a skillful management of a large defense forces, they managed to inflict a successive blow against the massive German air raid. Though it was the Soviet Navy that was the first Soviet military branch went on the highest alert and maintaining combat-ready status in the wake of Great Patriotic War, the combined air defense forces was likely to be the second that went on high alert in defense while they were still undergoing rearmament. When the PVO forces proven itself as a successful large defense force – as an organization since 1932, it has influenced the Navy to integrate a highly powerful air defense firepower on many of their surface warships, in the military’s idea of combined arms, especially on cruisers as generations passed on while giving birth to more specialized variants of warships later. The same can be said on destroyers as well. Not many or little has known about the Soviet’s interest on developing an air defense cruiser in the form of a small light cruiser as the likes of Atlanta-class and Dido-class. But the Soviets were no strangers to such intriguing concept. Dated back in 1939, they once developing the Project 47 armored destroyer-flotilla leader with a decent anti-aircraft defense capability akin to the Japanese Akizuki-class, while designed like a miniature Dido-class in the size of the Italian Capitani Romani-class. Though the flotilla leader class was classified under light cruiser category due to its large size, it was deliberately designed to take on the destroyer roles alongside Project 24 – Khabarovsk (although it shared many of the design elements from V. Ya. Shura’s work on Pr. 47, which was Pr. 24’s successor). Whilst the TsKB-17 variant for Pr. 47 has five 130 B-2-U twin DP gun turrets instead of Shura’s four B-2-U in his design, which seemed more like a mini Dido-class that would then potentially served as the fundamental design template for the MLK series project should the Naval Ministry relived their interest on PVO cruiser concept once again in the post-war period, while the idea of air defense role on a destroyer leader was scrapped later. Beside the MLK project, there was a heavier air defense cruiser design proposed to the Naval Ministry, named Project 84 that armed with four 180mm twin DP gun turrets. The milestone to purpose-built modern cruisers in the Cold War generations Despite the failure for unsuccessfully realizing their PVO cruiser projects in the mid-50s, as the dawn of guided missile technology rendered conventional naval artilleries mostly obsolete, the technological genesis of purpose-built cruisers has been set in stone since then, which in turn serving as the VMF’s modern capital warships throughout the Cold War and beyond. As such, cruiser-class warship designs were given a valid technological reason to continue exercising their existences in a newer and diverse forms, with a promising engineering purpose in mind when the VMF went big with the innovative ideas of purpose-built warships since the late-50s; from missile cruiser to large antisubmarine ship. Whilst the feasibility of battlecruisers was one of the reasons in the name of “heavy cruisers”, the most prominent reason of why the cruiser-class warship was still there to stay, was the birth of aircraft cruiser such as Project 1123 “Kondor” – Moskva-class ASW helicopter cruiser, Project 1143 “Krechet” – Kiev-class aircraft cruiser and Project 1143.5 – Riga/Kuznetsov-class heavy aircraft cruiser/aircraft carrier. It was the result of bureaucratic skepticism on aircraft carriers – all those times from the inter-war period until the mid-60s, the design bureaus had to went through the trouble of developing an aviation-carrying warship in the form of cruiser – which was possibly a direct evolution from the very concept of their PVO cruisers for the VMF’s naval doctrine that established the foundation of the aviation cruiser concept. Full history regarding the Soviet aircraft carrier development will be covered on a separate documentary thread in the future. Nevertheless, even now, the Soviet Union managed to convince the world with their stance on a cruiser-class warship proved its worth in engineering modularity and versatility as their capital warships as well as in the form of purpose-built vessels with a formidable air defense capability. In addition, an honorary mention for the existence of Project 1144 "Orlan" - Kirov-class in the early 1970s has brought the revival of battlecruiser into the modern times in terms of sheer anti-ship firepower comparable to WWI-era battlecruisers along with an armored ship hull of the WWII-era cruisers, despite the fact that the modern Kirov-class was officially classified as "heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser" by the Soviet Navy terminology. Nevertheless, whilst Project 1144 "Orlan" - Kirov-class presented with a deathly powerful anti-surface armaments, they also armed with a formidable & up-to-date air defense systems with their advanced surface-to-air missiles being just as devastating towards many incoming aerial threats to the fleet. Tier VIII – Project 68bis – Sverdlov/Shcherbarkov Project 68bis, also known as the Sverdlov-class cruiser. It was the thoroughly improved version of Pr. 68 – Chapayev-class light cruiser, and the last conventional cruiser in service for the Soviet VMF. Like Chapayev, Sverdlov was based on both the Soviet, German and Italian combined in concepts and designs, with a more modern hull which was not only better protected than the WWII-era light cruisers, but also was modified for better seaworthiness that enabled Sverdlov to cruise on the rough seas of the Northern Atlantic Ocean at high speed. The real intention reflected the desire of Stalin and the Soviet Navy who were more descendants of the Tsars officer class than the other Soviet Forces to create a traditional big power Navy – as a vision of the Big Fleet Program, but one geared mainly for defence of the Soviet coast, naval bases and close Arctic, Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea interests and with a secondary commerce raiding and political presence in the third world such as Cuba and Indonesia. Pr. 68bis – Sverdlov was designed as a support escort cruiser in the fleet of Project 82 – Stalingrad-class battlecruisers and projected aircraft carriers, such force-reckoning fleet composition would have posed a significant threat to the Royal Navy and other lesser North Atlantic navies, in a sustainably substantial scale, should the Big Fleet successfully realized. Originally, 40 ships were planned to be laid down, but was later reduced to a total 30 ships scheduled to be built starting 1949. After Stalin’s death in 1953 and prior to Khrushchev’s succession as the Secretary General in 1954, 14 ships were completed. Later, Khrushchev had the remaining 16 ships cancelled, with 6 incomplete hulls ordered to be scrapped. The remaining fleet remained in service through the 1970s while underwent a limited modernization program along the way such as replacement of traditional AA autocannons with a contemporary CIWS turrets – AK-230, anti-air/anti-surface guided missiles conversion, conversion into a command ship; even an aircraft carrier conversion proposal – Project 85, was drafted in the mid-1950s. Modernized Sverdlov cruisers were then continue serving the Navy until finally leaving service in the late 1980s and subsequently scrapped a total 13 ships of the class, whilst Murmansk ran aground at the Norwegian Sea in 1994 while en route to India to be scrapped over there. Only Mikhail Kutuzov was spared and preserved as a museum ship since 1992, in Novorossiysk. In comparison with Chapayev, Sverdlov has slightly more anti-aircraft firepower, more powerful torpedoes, but slightly slower than the Chapayev, just like Mikhail Kutuzov. However, unlike Kutuzov, Sverdlov equips with a surface-search radar instead of a smoke screen consumable, by default. Despite the fact she has reached the peak of the technological boundary for a conventional cruiser in real-life, the only convincingly viable upgrade for Sverdlov, is Project 68bis-ZIF, by replacing most 37mm V-11 mounts with six 45mm ZIF-69 mounts (technically similar as SM-20-ZIF, but electrically-powered – meaning it could be more efficient). Interestingly, seven Pr. 68bis-ZIF were supposedly scheduled to be constructed within the second half of production line. Very likely those six partially-built hulls were to be receiving ZIF-69 AA mounts, before Khrushchev had the production terminated. It is hard to be convinced that Sverdlov is qualified to be an air defense-oriented cruiser because she is very identical to Chapayev, but the Pr. 68bis-ZIF’s AA upgrade seems convincing to indicate that Sverdlov is heading towards the direction of enabling access to and development of a dedicated, purpose-built air defense cruisers. Either way, Sverdlov is fitting to represent a stopgap transition or an intermediate platform to more dedicated purpose-built cruisers. Tier IX – Project MLK-9-152 (Alexander Nevsky) The Malogo Lyogkie Kreyser (MLK) or small light cruiser, was a series of light cruiser projects with the design concept of purpose-built air defence combat as the design cruiser’s primary role in mind. Design phase of Project MLK was commenced from 1948 to 1950. Two design bureaus were participated and took charge of this project; OKB-5 proposed five variants of 130mm PVO cruiser design concepts and two 152mm PVO cruiser design variants. OKB-5 drafted two 152mm gun cruiser variants for their PVO cruiser design concept – MK-8-152 & MK-9-152. Both were to be armed with 152mm B-38 guns on special high-angle turrets designed by OKB-172 – BL-115 & BL-118, with the very same naval gun mounted on Chapayev & Sverdlov as a main armament. As such, it may expect to have a similar flat, high velocity trajectory and ballistic parameters. But unlike the MK-5 & MK-5bis, as a high angle dual-purpose guns, it has the maximum elevation interval of -6 - +80 degrees, traverse and elevation rate of 20 degrees per second and has the rate of fire of 12 – 17 rounds per minute. Like the MK-X-130 design concept, the 152mm variant lack a secondary armament while the 152mm DP guns effectively takes the primary anti-air engagement. In addition, the MLK cruiser comes with 25mm & 45mm quad AA gun mounts to ensure optimum anti-air firepower as a PVO cruiser, along with torpedoes for additional firepower. In between the two variants, the MK-9-152 seems fitting to be comparable and equally competitive with the British Neptune at the same tier. A total of nine 6-in guns should able to compensate its slower rate of fire in both alpha attack & anti-air firing. Moreover, its B-38 gun’s ballistic characteristics would make it easier to aim-and-fire than the British post-war 6”/50 QF Mark N5 DP guns mounted on Neptune, Minotaur and Tiger-class cruiser alike. Interestingly, this MLK-9-152 design parameters were identical to the 4th design variant (1950 draft) of Pr. 65 – Dimitri Donskoy in many ways in exception of being driven by three propellers instead of four and the absence of 100mm SM-5-1 twin DP gun mounts. For that, the installation of four or six SM-5-1 DP mounts and additional 4M-120 AA mounts shall represent as an upgrade for the MLK in the reference to Pr. 65’s design parameters. However, due to being significantly lighter and lightly armored than both Chapayev & Sverdlov, the MLK is expecting to be overall weaker and lower in hull integrity (consider the case of Kiev after Ognevoy and before Tashkent). But despite the prominent weakness, it could be offset by slightly lower ship profile and maybe better rudder turning. Makeshift Project LK-12-152 TTZ specs suggestion Alternatively, depending on decisions making, there would be a scenario where developers ultimately resort to improvise into the LK-12-152 design by make use of Sverdlov-class ship hull dimension & machinery, plus mix mesh with MLK-9-152 armaments & armor scheme. Consider this as a direct, further development from Project 68-bis - Sverdlov-class. Because if Project MLK-9-152 design variant parameters fails to compete with both American Seattle & British Neptune in terms of main guns' total DPS firepower, then this Franken-ship of LK-12-152 had to be resorted. Tier X – Project 84 (Rurik) The last conventional air defense cruiser project was personally initiated by Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union Nikolai G. Kuznetsov himself in 1953, and it was his second to last project conducted by himself, with Project 85 post-war aircraft carrier design as his final project, until Admiral Kuznetsov had his most honoured, prestigious rank stripped and excommunicated from the Navy in 1955 for the battleship Novorossiysk incident (which was shrouded with mysteries & conspiracy theories), which ultimately resulted to both of his personal projects summarily terminated. As the advent of guided missile-era, this cruiser project was denounced as obsolete and had it scrapped entirely by the decree of General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev. Project 84 PVO cruiser was designed to be armed with, and would have been, the most powerful dual-purpose gun in history, in a calibre size of 180mm (7.1-in) as opposed to the British’s 6”/50 QF Mark N5 dual-purpose gun on a Mark 26 twin gun mounts on the Tiger-class cruisers, which is already known to be the largest rapid-firing dual-purpose gun ever built and brought into service in reality. The 180mm naval guns armed on Pr. 84 was most likely the same B-1-K naval artillery used by a Kirov-class cruiser, installed into the SM-48 twin high-angle gun turret. The SM-48 was designed to have an elevation interval of -3 - +76 degrees, traverse rate of 20 degrees per second, elevation rate of 12 degrees per second and the rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute. Due to the very limited sources online to gather enough information regarding this DP gun turret, this is what was descripted in the available archived documentaries in the internet so far. In combination with 100mm twin quick-firing DP gun mounts & 57mm quad heavy AA gun mounts, Pr. 84 would be reckoned as the most lethal anti-air cruiser that should not be underestimated, especially with its possibly longest AA range with the 180mm DP guns. It is questionable to determine how effective the 180mm guns could perform against aircraft at both long and short range together with its low rate of fire, however. But, the overall anti-aircraft armaments may not be very effective at short range due to the lack close-in anti-air guns in exchange of being devastating in the washer-size of medium-long range aerial denial saturation. Like Pr. 65 – Dimitri Donskoy, she was supposedly designed to accommodate two Ka-15 multipurpose helicopters. But since it did not include on Dimitri Donskoy, that could mean Pr. 84 seemed to be a pinnacle viability of inclusion at the very least. The surface-search radar consumable substitutes such absence of feature in a similar fashion. And nonetheless, Pr. 84 could be as evenly dangerous as the British Minotaur in terms of overall firepower, if not better, as she traded firing rate for a stronger raw firepower while lacks of torpedoes. TTZ
  16. PotatoMD

    Massive Fire AA?

    So we all know that MFAA is more or less useless. So can we change it back to Manual AA? It would work like Manual Secondaries: AA does not fire at all unless you set a sector. To compensate, the effect would be strengthened by like 300% and the cooldown for sector reinforcement would be halved. Also, both this skill and manual secondaries shouldn't be 4 point skills, maybe 3 at max. Also, can we have AFT increase AA range again? It doesn't have to be huge, like 5% at most. I feel the issue with this in the past was that AA could stealth fire at planes, but now it seems that AA guns firing gives a bloom like main guns do, so that shouldn't be a problem. It would help ships be able to defend each other from air attacks.
  17. So a lot of us think "Reeeee, CV baaaad" or "Reee, CV good, u bad" or somewhere in between. Whatever. I'm curious if we're more united regarding one specific aspect of CVs - the fighter planes. Personally I feel like they're terrible at their job of being AA, a detriment to both playing a team-focused CV and a surface ship that needs AA cover. They're okay as spotters but... patrolling a 3km radius is kind of a joke in that regard as it is for AA. The main question here is, if WG devised a hypothetical buff to CV fighters, whether it'd be a better consumable or a player-controlled squadron or anything else you guys come up with, would it be beneficial to gameplay for CVs, for surface ships, for everyone?
  18. _M_a_r_e_c_h_a_l_

    Problemas Em Pontos De Habilidade

    bom eu estou com um navio IX do Reino unido Mais Eu Destribui Algums Pontos Do Capitão Em Habilidades Como AA mais dai Os Meus Canhões Automaticos E AA não Funcionam Mais. E não Sei Resertar Meus Pontos Se Alguem Puder Me Ajudar Eu Agradeço
  19. During the recent change to Priority Sector, many Cruisers had their AA normalized. For instance, Minotaur AA was cut in half, both in Flak and in Continuous Damage. However, Defensive Fire was altered in a way that makes it EXTREMELY effective now. Defensive Fire increases your Continuous Damage by only 50%. It also increases the firing rate of your Flak by 300%. 300% is a lot. 300% hurts. Why is this useful? Can't CVs just dodge all the Flak? Normally, yes... but when the game has to spawn so much Flak that it runs out of room to put it, it becomes a wall that cannot be dodged. Example: * A Des Moines makes 5 bursts of Flak every 2 seconds. * The Des Moines takes the +2 Flak bursts for a new total of 7 bursts every 2 seconds. * The Des Moines activates Defensive Fire and now generates 28 Flak bursts every 2 seconds. * The Des Moines activates Priority Sector, which ramps up to an additional +35% output of 37 Flak bursts every 2 seconds. As a CV player, you go from clear skies... to a demonic landscape of fire... and everything is dead. 12 planes? Dead. In under a second some times. --- PSA --- This is not a complaint. Defensive Fire is a cooldown and has every right to be powerful during its uptime. This is a Public Service Announcement about why Defensive Fire may not feel strong. If you activate Defensive Fire after planes are too close for Flak cannons... you wasted the cooldown. If you activate Defensive Fire while islands block your Flak from seeing planes, you've wasted the cooldown. If you activate Defensive Fire while not having the +2 Flak mod, you've nerfed the cooldown's effectiveness. If you activate Defensive Fire while ignoring Priority Sector, you've nerfed the cooldown's effectiveness. Note: For the people that use full AA Commander Skills, I'm not sure if that further increases firing rate of Flak or increases the damage done by the explosion (I think it's damage, personally). So no tricked out 19 point anti-plane build are required for this.
  20. So with flak more or less being relagated to long range so carriers can focus on aiming at mid and short range, that seems to leave DDs in a tight spot since you leave AA off until the planes would detect you. And with most DDs, this is less than the range of your flak (assuming you're in a DD that even has long range AA). Am I missing something here?
  21. Capt_Ahab1776

    AA for Dreadnought

    Hello, I had just read a thread about the worst premiums. I read some one had mentioned the Dreadnought as one of the worst. I have the Dreadnought and, very happy to have her, (Thank you WG). I have no plans on selling her as she is very historic and I do have a little bit of a collector bug now and again. I reserve her for exclusively Co-op matches when I do play her. Now with the reintroduction of bot CV's into Co-op. Is there a chance she could be armed with her regular tech tree tier contemporary, Bellerophon's AA? Currently she has none so it is WASD to the rescue. Even with a addition of the Bellerophon's AA it would by no means make her OP. Maybe just make her more viable and a possible Random mode ship?
  22. As it stands, as most people can agree, the Grozovoi, from what I can gather from a large variety of players, the Grozovoi is a bit... boring. Anything she can do other ships can do better, and as such, could use some mixing up to her statistics, and I personally have one that could give a superbly unique feature to her. This change would update her to the new meta's since her introduction to the game. She did recently get a repair party, but that isn't unique, as that is what the RN DDs have too, and I would argue that despite this change, Daring has better survivability. I would like to see optional main armament, with a particular turret design in mind. As it stands, the Grozovoi has been equipped by WG the 130 mm/58 SM-2-1 turret, an appropriate turret choice to fit the schematic design Project 40n, which calls for a twin , dual purpose, tri-axle 130mm gun. Now, I am sure we can agree, World of Warships is a bit of an alternate universe, one where all these designed/proposed ship designs were actually built. The turret I have in mind, if it had been built, and considered a successful design, I could image the russian navy replacing the 130 mm/58 SM-2-1 of the Grozovoi, and other similarly weighted dual purpose weapons on other ships. The Turret which I have in mind is the BL-127, a quad barreled 100mm/70 gunned tri-axle turret; The BL-127 was a turret designed to replace/upgrade installations of the SM-5 turret, which was present as the secondary armament on five Chapaev class and twenty Sverdlov class (Pr.68bis) cruisers. (In-game, we see the turret present on the Mikhail Kutuzov, the upgraded Chapeyev, and the upgraded Dmitri Donskoi) The BL-127 used the same identical gun barrels, fired the same ammunition, without adding a significant amount of weight to the ship. Why use this turret as an optional armament? Well, it would give a significant difference in just how she plays, something unique, to distinguish her from her counterparts. No other ship would be like it, in a destroyer having optional gameplay formats like this. . It would also give her other unique characteristics, in having the most number of guns on any DD, featuring gameplay similar to the Harugumo, but with 2 more guns, slower reload, and a heal. This is not to say the Grozovoi is in her current state underpowered, she is a very competitive all-purpose ship. Despite being ranked as the 2nd least popular T10 destroyer, she has the best Plane kill ratio at T10 for DDs, beaten only by the Kidd and Neustrashimy for overall DDs. Firstly, you downgrade your gun caliber to upgrade the quantity of fire power per volley. The BL-127 turret, on paper at least, supposedly retained the same 4 seconds reload that the SM-5 turrets had, now, WG can make changes on this front for balance reasons, perhaps 4.0 to keep it inline with the SM-2-1 turrets the Grozovoi already has. Which brings me to the point in that because this turret was never built or tested, WG can modify its stats to their hearts content to make it balanced. The gameplay would more resemble that of the Harugumo, the only DD in the game currently armed with 100mm guns. From playing her notable qualities/quirks of a 100mm guns is, for example, HE is not too effective against other DDs, unless you have IFHE. Just like any other DD, these 100mm guns would be quite the fire starter, I personally suggest a 4% chance for fire, as that would give the 12 gun broadside fire chance to set fire of 48%, which is average amongst the other T10 DD broadsides. Would such a turret swap physically work? In my personal opinion, yes, for the short answer at least. The long answer? Well, The SM-5-1, the turret the BL-127 was designed to replace, weighs 45.8 metric tons, the BL-127 turret however weighs 66 metric tons. This was, according to the engineers, not a problem and would not require any severe changes to the cruisers to implement this change. Now that is out of the way, the SM-2-1, which the Grozovoi is currently equipped with, weighs 57.3 metric tons. This means to have all 3 of these turrets replaced with the BL-127 would increase the weight of the Grozovoi by 26.1 metric tons. In-game, the Grozovoi currently weighs in grand total 3,849 tons. (I do not know if that is metric or standard tons) thus the increase on weight would be less then 0.7% weight increase to the ship. So for tonnage concern, the weight increase is negligible. As for the width of the barbette, the BL-127 was designed to have one that is 3.95 meters wide, as the SM-2-1, I cannot find the data on that front. But I would assume it is similar, and if such a circumstance had occurred in the alternate reality that WoWS exists in, a minor difference on turret ring size would be an easily retrofitted change. Both the SM-2-1 and BL-127 are tri-axled turrets, so the mounting should be compatible with minor modifications. The ammunition elevators I would not imagine taking up more room, probably even less room, assuming the Left pair and Right pair of 100mm guns each shared their elevator, assuming all 4 guns don't share the same munitions elevator in the first place. In-game statistics of BL-127 as a Primary Armament (These stats are just my own interpretation/estimations, based off of the closest approximations in the game, Harugumo's 100mm/65 Type 98 and the SM-5-1s turrets found on Kutuzov/Chapayev/Dm.Donskoi, plus corrections for balance) [square bracket indicates the stats of the SM-2-1 turret of the Grozovoi as of 0.7.6.0] Range: 12.3km [12.3km] Reload: 5.0s [4.2s] Fire %: 6% [8%] 180 Traverse: 16s [10s] Dispersion: 95m [107m] HE Dmg: 1400 [1800] AP Dmg: 1900 [2600] HE Vel. 1000/s [950m/s] AP Vel. 1000m/s [950m/s] In-Game Statistics of the BL-127 as an AA Armament (These stats are just my own interpretation/estimations, based off of the Akizuki's 100mm/65 Type 98 and the SM-5-1s turrets found on Kutuzov/Chapeyev/Dm.Donskoi, plus corrections for balance) [square bracket indicates the stats of the SM-2-1 turret of the Grozovoi as of 0.8.6.0] Number of explosions per Salvo: 6 [4] DPS within a shell's blast radius: 1600 [1680] Continuous DPS within the action zone: 185 [97] Range: 3.5km-5.8km [3.5km-6km] Hit probability: 85% [100] Final Comments: The biggest thing this ship lacks any characteristic to it that she is the best at. There is nothing this ship is better at then any other DD. Her survivability was increased recently by adding a repair party, but the Daring I feel is better with her repair party and the fact she takes less damage overall from having a thinner hull and better concealment meaning it gets shot less. Her offensive strength is pretty average, both for her mains and torpedoes. Her AA is really good, but without DefAA its arguable if she is the best or not. This re-armament choice would give the ship the biggest broadside, of 12x100mm, compared to the closest and most similar competitor, the Harugumo, which can fire faster to compensate, but only the grozovoi would be able to boast having 8 bow on guns. Or you know, you could divide the Grozovoi into a 2nd ship with these guns for a T10 premium.
  23. Right. So I've been away from this game for about a week, first for a largely disappointing trip to Nebraska to see the spawn of my oldest sister (not happy with those kids right now, a pair of right jerks they've turned into), and second because I went back to finish a playthrough of Mass Effect 2 that I'd let collect dust for too long. I've finally gotten around to trying to get back into the swing of things (not that anything's changed in the time I've been gone, just trying to get my 'captain's instinct' back), and I take Musashi out in co-op to help grind out some daily crates and try to get my aim back. Lo and behold, a wild pair of bot Lexingtons appear (one on my incomplete team, and it's twin for the reds). Now I don't expect good play out of bot CVs, but even they should be a reasonable threat to a weak AA ship like Musashi. Instead, I get a nice lovely reminder of how 'balanced' AA still is. I know more changes are on the way, but when an IFHE secondary build Musashi with about 12 triple 25's and a grand total of 6 twin 5 inchers for an AA loadout can single-handedly ruin a Lexington's day (even a poorly played one), something is off to a point that it should never have gotten to. The replay itself can be found at https://replayswows.com/replay/59173#stats.
  24. Basically, it's been a little while since I've played the game and about the same length of time since I cared about what was going on here. The last time I did, the big topic of conversation was that AA had been significantly buffed to the point that CVs were completely useless; Their planes would get shredded like a brick of cheese put to a grader. The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about playing a few matches in the near future and I've generally had fun with the CVs I've bought since the rework went live. I've got a Ranger, a Furious, an Enterprise, and a Zeppelin and I enjoy playing all of them on occasion. However, I may not come back if these ships are in such a position that they can't be competitive and get good damage numbers. As such, I pose to all of you the question in the title. Thank you in advance for whatever helpful answers I may get.
  25. MakersMike

    Air defense question

    I'm pretty new, and I assumed something about planes attacking but now I'm not sure. When planes are attacking my ship, I notice that little airplane figure that I can move around with my mouse. I'm color blind, but I think it's orange. Am I supposed to aim that towards the attacking planes for better chance at shooting them down or what is that for? And is there a button I should push while aiming it or just point it towards the plane? Thanks
×