Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cleveland'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 12 results

  1. I also took this opportunity to try out the video editor within Windows Photos App, but obviously from what you can see its completely lacking any transition editing functionality, the few cool text effects does not make up for stuttering between clips.
  2. Been gone a year (getting tired of saying that). Examining ships I have in preparation. The Cleveland I had was Tier 6. Now it seems to be Tier 8. So what will I find when I get back to port? (Besides my new Buffalo and Tier 8 Baltimore.)
  3. My Cleveland's main guns haven't worked since the first CV rework patch. Every other ship and sound in the game works perfectly. It has the American Eagle skin
  4. Way back, well before the beta test for World of Warships, I remember having noticed that during the war years the elevation for the 6-in/47 Mark 16 mount was increased from its original 40-degrees, to 60-degrees. Back then, and for the past five years or so, I had merely assumed that the sole purpose of this modification was to increase the range at which the ships utilizing these turrets could engage shore targets, a target which they had increasingly been found engaging as Japan's surface fleet continued to shrink from 1943-1945. While it is indeed true that this increase in elevation did serve to extend the reach of the main batteries shells, that gain was extremely minimal in relation to the relatively massive addition of 20-degrees, and would have seemed to not be worth the effort spent modifying every 6-in Mark 16 mounting currently in service at that time. It’s also worth noting that, although the VT fuse was made widely available to shells of practically every caliber (larger calibers usually intended for effecting reliably airbursts over enemy positions), no mention of it being used to engage aircraft was made in most popular histories. This same fact holds true for one of the largest collections of Naval Gun data in existence: http://www.navweaps.com/. However, it seems that most of us have been in the dark about a special feature made possible by this increase in elevation, myself included. Ladies and Gentlemen, the 6-in/47 Mark 16 triple is a verified dual-purpose weapon. Yep. All of these guns are capable of effectively taking aircraft under fire. Just be certain, this is not confusing the capabilities of the 6-in/47 Mark 16 mounted aboard the Brooklyn’s, Helena’s, Cleveland’s, or Fargo’s with that of the 6-in/47DP Mark 16 mounted aboard the much later Worcester’s. Oh no, far from it. The history of attempting to make the 6-in Mark 16 into a dual-purpose weapon goes back well into the mid 1930’s, direct mention of such a mount being made in 1936 during the early design phase of what would eventually become the Atlanta class. A twin turret, not unlike that which eventually made it onto Worcester was proposed to replace the 5-in/38 secondary battery in its entirety, saving not only space, but weight for the heavy twin mounting (which weighed slightly more than a single purpose 6-in triple). However the design process for this mounting proved extremely difficult, and ultimately disappointing. In spite of much work being put forth towards it, and initially being planned for what would become the Cleveland class, it would be well after the war ended before such a mount finally materialized. In the meantime, the problems of heavy anti-aircraft guns did much to stunt enthusiasm for such capabilities in the late 1930’s. Even in 1937, a heavy anti-aircraft gun was capable of only effectively engaging horizontal bombers which had to fly at relatively level altitude and a straight course. Firing at extreme range was considered dubious at best, and by the time the aircraft lined up for an attack, it would be well within the effective range of the 5-in gun, which could fire nearly twice as quickly as the originally planned 8 rounds per minute for the dual-purpose 6-in. In a way, the 6-in dual-purpose guns range would be exceeding the effective range of anti-aircraft fire control at the time. Even then, interest in the possibility of utilizing the 6-in as a long range barrage weapon persisted among various elements of the fleet. In 1940, the office of Fleet Training proposed a study in regards to the potential effectiveness of modifying current 6-in triple mountings to be capable of long range barrage fire. Although the gun ports cut in the turret faces of the 6-in/47 mounts would only allow for elevation to 41-degrees, the mechanisms for the mount itself were designed with the capability to elevate to 60-degrees. Thus, the only required modification would be enlarging the upper portion of the gun ports on all existing 6-in/47 turrets. Reception to the idea was mixed, particularly among those at BuOrd. Some individual officers were more optimistic, such as Captain Willis A. Lee who, at the August 16th General Board Hearing, explained: “All he wanted was the chance to get off a few shots at high-level horizontal bombers, using the Mk 37 director with an extra cam and preset fuses to eliminate fuse setters on the guns”.* Indeed, BuOrds own studies into that subject had resulted in the general appraisal that “since the guns could not be loaded at elevations above 20 degrees, their rate of fire fell from ten to twelve rounds per minute, to five: each turret would have to depress to 20 degrees to reload between salvos. Even so, the triple 6-in/47 gun was roughly equivalent in weight of metal, though not in handiness, to the twin 5-in/38 gun”.** In spite of this, BuOrd’s skepticism prevailed, explaining that it would take too long to modify the current mountings to fit a fuse setter or high angle loading mechanism necessary for practical usage at the time, and the loading angle of 20-degrees seemed too problematic for it to be worthwhile. On July 31, seeking to avoid construction delays on the new Cleveland class, the idea was axed for the time being. The next class of light cruisers then under design would be the first to receive this new capability, being based entirely around the presumptive dual-purpose mounting. Yet this abandonment was not to last for long. Wartime development saw the creation of the VT fuse, which first saw service in 1943. Those familiar with the subject will know that the VT fuse solves the second largest problem of anti-aircraft fire control: generating a proper fuse time which will explode the shell in the vicinity of the target aircraft. Like most weapons ranging from 3-in to 16-in inhabiting the U.S. inventory, the 6-in/47 received its very own VT fuse for the standard 105 lb HC shell. This was designated the Mark 47, and it possessed a 100-foot detection radius with an 800-yard arming safety range.*** The creation of the Mark 47 allowed for the deletion of the special high-angle fuse setting tray, and meant that the only action necessary to allow the 6-in turrets to target aircraft, was a simple cam and component integrator which linked the 6-in director circuit to the Mark 37 GFCS. In one easy step, the issue of fire control had been solved. All 6-in/47 triple turrets with the 60-degree cut out gun-ports (which seemed to have been performed largely at random whenever a ship was brought in for an overhaul or modernization post-1943) were now perfectly capable of engaging enemy aircraft. (Thank you to @Phoenix_jz for the image, I had a similar diagram but the quality was extremely poor.) Naturally, the problem of the lowered rate of fire at high angles remained. The intention was that special high angle loading trays would be made available once the war ended, however interest in this was lost by 1946.**** Nevertheless, the 6-in/47 Mark 16 mounting does not compare poorly to other high-angle dual-purpose 6-in guns of the time. The rate of fire with a 20-degree loading angle either matched or exceeded the practical rate of fire achieved on the French 6-in/55 Mle 1936, the British 6-in/50 Mark XXI, and the Japanese 6.1-in/55 3rd Year Type guns. All of the aforementioned batteries had been designed with the express purpose to fulfill that requirement, yet in reality none of them would appear to have approached the actual practical utility of the 6-in/47 in that role. The Japanese and British turrets were hampered by a low rate of fire at most angles, and later the lack of VT fuses. The French mounting, while the most advanced among them, was also the most complex and failure prone of the bunch. It also lacked the ability to utilize the later VT fuse, further degrading its already questionable lethality (as illustrated by the fact that late in design the two wing mounts were deleted and replaced with six of the more reliable 4-in/45 Mle. 1930 on Richelieu). What does this mean in the end? Simple, these three ships are missing a few flak puffs at long range: Helena Boise Cleveland WG, pls fix. Notes: *Friedman, Norman, U.S.Cruisers, an Illustrated Design History, page 261 **Ibid. ***United States Navy, Information Bulletin No.- 29, Antiaircraft Action Summary ****Friedman, Norman, U.S.Cruisers, an Illustrated Design History, page 268
  5. After last major update, cleveland with freedom camo has no cannons sound
  6. Now to show what I had started advertising with my previous thread on Monday. On Saturday night, we had 3 out of 4 straight games in Cherry Blossom where we encountered this version of the scenario. The first time we were still figuring out what the heck was going on, and didn't win that time. The second time, we ended up down to two ships at the end, finishing with four stars. The third game, we managed to pull off a five star win with no ships lost, and that is what I am here to show you. There will be one upload each day, starting with this one I uploaded yesterday evening of myself in the Charles Martel. There will one this evening as well if you want to go watch it before I add it here. Now on with the show. Now a couple screenshots to show my damage to the Zaos. Will this get Cherry Blossom nerfed? I don't really think so because this is not a normal game, and WoWs staff may be wanting to see these replays. We have run 5 ship divisions before and I had no desire to add them to my channel, as that is simply showing off and grounds for getting nerfed but this is a special case. @Radar_X @KamiSamurai @turbo07 @Gneisenau013 or someone else in the staff, let me know if I should be sending the original replay files to support or somewhere else to be looked at.
  7. Freddie_Creamer

    IFHE on Cleveland

    I was wondering if IFHE is a good idea or a waste of 4 points. It's been doing pretty good for me so far, but I'm looking for other opinions from people with more experience on the matter.
  8. Let's compare Seattle and Cleveland (I'm assuming the upgrade modules match my Buffalo), assuming full modification loadouts. FIREPOWER: PURE DOWNGRADE "Same ROF, MUCH WORSE Turret Rotation (18 seconds to 22.5)" This is a clear invitation to take "-15% turret turn time for +5% reload time" in slot 2 to try and fail to compensate, and/or fill slot 6 with "ROF all the way, to hell with turret rotation" in slot which kills your ability to brawl, to easily switch targets, or perhaps to achieve such basic tasks as keeping guns on target during a hard turn (for comparison, Fiji with 25 second turret time cannot keep guns on target in a hard turn, Seattle has 22.5 base and the higher ROF makes that traverse time go up 13%, which is about enough to start losing track of targets in a hard turn at mid or close ranges (Fiji turns faster which results in losing track of targets at ANY range in a hard turn) and given the huge thin citadel... Oh, and Seattle has the same range a tier higher (and the B hull magically decreases the range FOR WHATEVER REASON). If you're telling us to use Slot 6 on gun range to compensate for longer battle ranges... the DPS doesn't change at all from the Tier 8! (Which reminds me, Ibuki is power-creeped well beyond oblivion, 4.5 ROF would be quite reasonable for Ibuki with its fewer guns than Zao and paper armor, among other buffs!) EDIT: Was just informed the turret arcs are grossly inferior to Cleveland, making this a clear DOWNGRADE instead of NEUTRAL even with stacked equipment. EDIT 2: I assumed the top hull range drop is a bug, not a feature. If it's a feature, well... DURABILITY: GROSS DOWNGRADE 36900 to 43600 HP, not the worst... Seattle is a huge target compared to Cleveland, and the plating is the same 25mm. ENORMOUS CITADEL IN ARMOR VIEWER LOLWUT? EDIT 2: I have just been informed the Seattle belt is thinner than Cleveland's. I have confirmed with in-game armour viewer that Seattle has 102mm belt over about twice the length and height of Cleveland's 127mm belt's above-water portion. So it is not only a larger target but will always be penned by 8-inch or larger fire unless at autobounce (45+ degrees for non-USN 8" and 60+ for USN 8") up to something like 14km where the shell plunging angle is what makes the armour usable at high but not quite autobounce angles. AGILITY/CAMO: PURE DOWNGRADE 660m -> 750m turn radius, MUCH slower. 7.2 -> 8.7 seconds rudder shift. 10.7 -> 12.2 base detection by sea (I have no camo on my Cleveland and picked IFHE for 10th point, so can compare base number with Seattle) 32.5 knots -> 33 knots. Much improvement, such wow! CONCLUSION: In almost any scenario, replacing a Seattle with a Cleveland is likely no significant loss (Edit 2: a great gain) for the team. This is contrary to, say, replacing any Tier 9 battleship with a Tier 8 of the same line. WG, it's ONE extra mod slot you get from going from Tier 8 to 9, and that's spent on trying (and failing) to make firepower fully equal to the Cleveland, and takes up mod slot 2 as well... And would someone explain to me why the devs seem to think that building a dual-purpose turret is useful when it's TOO SLOW TO TRACK AIRCRAFT? 22.5 second turn time for 180 degrees is NOT "dual-purpose", not even CLOSE! And the USN designers would have known this! Do we have to chalk it up to another "Russian experts" issue? What Seattle needs to go from GARBAGE to MEHBOTE: Reload from 6.5 to 5.5 seconds, turret traverse from 22.5 to 18 seconds, Armour belt from 102mm to 127mm or more, and absolutely not less than Cleveland max range (EDIT: and gun arcs) before modifications. It would serve as a sensible stepping stone to Worcester's 4.6 second reload with that, despite the terribad quality of life in other regards compared to Cleveland. To make Seattle a GUDBOTE? Any two of the following (starting from 5.5 second reload, 18 second turret traverse and 127mm belt as described above): 5 second reload (Worcester has same gun count and 4.6 second reload, in comically faster turrets) OR 7.5-second rudder shift AND <730m turn radius OR 11.5 km base detection Another way to make Seattle GUDBOTE? Replace it with a Fargo i.e. slightly modified Cleveland that's more agile (built to be more stable, particularly when heeling in turns), has slightly more historical max displacement (a bit more HP, magnified by the "built to be more resilient" fact) with the reload buttered down to 6 seconds from 6.5. THAT would be a worthy Tier 9, and the current Seattle can become a premium instead, as a never-built design study should be when a suitable Real Ship is available. Then put Seattle at Tier 7 with current stats as a premium. That would be a Gudbote despite being a huge pinata even at Tier 7.
  9. I talk Seattle today, and to a lesser extent Cleveland. These two ships in my opinion represent the worst grind in both the CA and CL lines. They aren’t bad ships, but they are prone to boring gameplay. I’m not an island camping fan. But with short range and weak armor, you really have no choice.
  10. Vagitron

    Seattle B Hull

    Does anyone know offhand if it is intentional or an oversight that the B Hull on Seattle drops gun range one kilometer lower than A hull?
  11. CommandantObvious

    Inertia Fuse on T8 Cleveland

    I have been playing the new T8 Cleveland for a while now but have been wondering if anyone has advise on using inertia fuse shells or not. 152mm guns are recommended to take it so I been playing with it since I got it (my Atlanta captain has found his non-premium ship lol). If not IFHE then what other 4pt trait? Thinking Advanced Firing training, but wanted to hear other thoughts.