Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'heavy cruiser'.

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
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • 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
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Filter by number of...

Found 16 results

  1. Shouldn't we consider making them vulnerable to the Asashio torps? Don't know if possible as they won't be differentiated as class, and also, the concept is more of weapons, functionality and armor discussion, as opposed to displacement and draft then anything else, and there are cruisers that technically should be vulnerable already. Just food for thought. Cheers, Dan
  2. When are we going to see RN Heavy Cruisers like the County class, much less Exeter and York? It would be nice.
  3. We have plenty of new cruisers of other nations and major navies, time for a new Commonwealth Cruiser to be added. I would like to see a tier 7 Commonwealth premium heavy cruiser like the HMAS Canberra, a Royal Australian Navy (RAN) heavy cruiser of the Kent sub-class of County-class cruisers Built prewar due to the constraints of the washington treaty but she is no lightweight. Armament Primary 4 × 2 – 8-inch (203 mm) guns (4 twin turrets) The 50 calibre BL 8 inch gun Mark VIII could fire 5 rounds a minute ( 1 round every 12 seconds, faster than a Pensicola) These are less than pocket battleship guns and more than a typical light cruiser so more uptier than a perth leander for instance. Same calibre as a Pensicola at Tier 7. Less guns than a Pensicola but a faster refire rate. Anti Air 4 × 1 – 4-inch (102 mm) anti-aircraft guns 4 × 1 – 2-pounder (40 mm) quadruple pom-poms 4 × 1 – 3-pounder (47 mm) saluting guns 12–16 .303-inch machine guns 4 × multiple pom-poms (installed 1942) 5 × 1 – 20 mm Oerlikon guns Torps 2 × 4 – 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes Armor Similar to the pensicola Also had a walrus float plane for recon that dropped bombs ( so a unique aspect of this plane could be that it drops AP bombs ? ) She was a war veteran with Battle honours: East Indies 1940–41, Pacific 1941–42, Guadacanal 1942 Savo Island 1942 and sunk on savo island battle. http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-canberra-i This is a ship I know I would pay money for and is definitely a kick [edited]ship even though it is very squishy but it depends on how WG models it, and after all the bleating about cruisers give them something to chew on.
  4. As announced several months earlier, we finally have the information about the Pr. 82 Stalingrad - this top tier heavy/battlecruiser is going to be available to top Clan players as the reward ship for testing in the wake of the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad, the bloodiest war in the Russian history. Still, we yet to know if the devs would or are working on the possible Soviet battlecruiser line, since there is also the Pr. 69 Kronshtadt. For more information & inquiry about the Soviet battlecruisers, you can always feel free to drop by in my dedicate battlecruiser line proposal thread for discussions. It's in my signature.
  5. As I am actually starting to enjoy sailing the Pensacola, I'm planning to keep her. As such, I'll need to train a captain to either replace her current captain (if I move them up to the next ship) or to captain the next ship (if I keep the current captain in Pensacola). I'll use my Indianapolis and/or Marblehead to train the new captain. My Pensacola captain currently has Priority Target, Expert Marksman, Basic and Advanced Firing Training, with two points unassigned. The new captain is already at four points, with Priority Target, Expert Marksman, and a spare point. I was thinking of applying to both an AA themed build, with PT, EM, BFT and AFT. I was also thinking of getting Superintendent afterwards, which leaves 6 points left. There are some other skills I might consider are: Preventative Maintenance: to reduce the number of incapitations recieved Incoming Fire Alert: to warn about long-range, potentially unexpected enemy fire and allow more reaction time Adrenaline Rush: to increase late-game DPM Last Stand: to allow evasive action even if engine and/or rudder is KO'd Demolition Expert: to start more fires, increasing DPM IFHE: to increase DPM with plain HE damage Radio Location: to more easily hunt DDs Concealment Expert: to avoid being shot at all
  6. British Heavy Cruiser Design Notes

    1927 PROGRAM (SURREY) The new (10,000 ton) sketch design showed 1,620 tons of armour, compared to 1,100 tons for the most recent A Cruiser Dorsetshire. Magazines would be protected against 8in fire at all ranges below 20,000yds, and against 6in fire at all ranges. The protected part of the machinery would be protected against 8in fire between 7,000 and 20,000yds, and against 6in fire at all ranges up to 20,000yds. The other ship, Design Y, cut power to 60,000shp (six boilers, four shafts). Speed would fall to 30kts or perhaps 30.25kts. Length was reduced again, to 570ft. Hull weight was cut by reducing hull depth… The weight saved in machinery and hull could provide protection for the entire machinery space. The reduction in power eliminated one funnel, clearing the deck for catapults and HA directors. Controller liked the added protection and the improved arrangement… Legend and drawings were approved by the Board on 22 November 1928. ** More details to come ** Arrangements looked similar to Exeter, which benefited from Surrey design process, except she had four twins. Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.
  7. Just got the KMS Prinz Eugen

    So I finally bought myself the German Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen. She's a beautiful ship, I must say. Only played two battles with her and I absolutely love her! I think that I made a pretty good choice in getting her. She'll fit in nicely with the fleet.
  8. A detailed look at the County class Cruisers Not the 10,000t 8”armed cruiser the RN wanted, but the 10,000t 8” armed cruiser the RN deserved. I did say I would do a review of these ships at some point, and well, here I am. A review in tow. In that old request thread, hexeris wanted HMAS Australia run down and gone over to see how she would fit in game, and since Australia fits in this class, I called dibs. Therefore, this thread is going to be a master-thread with reviews for different ships in the class as per their peculiarities. Meaning if different ships from the class would fit into the game as a premium or regular at different tiers. Although HMAS Australia, was requested, first up is HMS Kent, which I envisage as the regular tier 7 heavy cruiser for the RN, and there is no bias here whatsoever. (The fact that my avatar is HMS Kent is completely unrelated, honest!) HMS Kent (54) Invicta - Unconquered. – Named for the Home county of Kent, South-east England and commissioned in 1928, she spent most of her early career as flagship of the China squadron, and she was extensively rebuilt with a new armour belt, dual 4” guns and octuple pompoms in 1938. Returning to the east Indies and Indian Ocean, but sent back to the Mediterranean in August 1940 to combat the Italians, she was not a month on the job when attacked by Italian torpedo bombers, being hit in the stern by a single torpedo and severely damaged. After being repaired in the UK, she escorted Arctic convoys and carrier raids against the Tirpitz. Kent, with the Light Cruiser Bellona, and 4 destroyers also intercepted and decimated a convoy of German freighters and minesweepers. However, she was not needed for much longer, and put into reserve in January 1945, before being scrapped in 1948. HMS Kent, the 8th (or 9th), as built, still in that attractive pre-war white and buff 'camouflage' scheme. From what I can tell, she doesn't have a 3rd 4" gun per side, and the catapult holds a smaller biplane, so I am guessing this photo was taken around 1929-1932. The camouflage could be white and mid-grey, given that Kent was reportedly wearing that in 1932 (conflicting sources). WEIGHT – Displacement/HP There are quite a few figures given for Kent’s displacement. So I have listed them and given a rough approximation of the Hitpoints she should get. From wikipedia Standard Displacement: 10,010t – circa 28’400HP Full Load Displacement: 13,740t – circa 35’400HP From navypedia/WW2 Cruisers & Battleships Standard Displacement: 10,434t – circa 29,200HP (1939-1941) Standard Displacement: 10,876t – circa 30,000HP (From 1941 onwards) Full Load Displacement: circa 14,910t – circa 37’500HP Taking an average of both gets us about 29,200HP for standard displacement and A-hull and 36,450HP for full load and B-hull. These values are pretty good for a tier 7 ship, and could even be workable at tier 8, although at the low end of that tier. Only Myoko beats the average, and with the lower estimates, Pensacola & Belfast draw level. The formulas may have overestimated the HP value, but it should detract too much from Kent being a healthy ship HP wise. ARMOUR – As originally built, the Counties had poor protection 25mm belt over the machinery, 32mm on the deck, and a 111mm box over the magazines. However, Kent was rebuilt in 1937-8 and this improved her armour somewhat. The original condition county class could become a tier 6 premium along the lines of the French Duquesne. The rebuild in terms of armour improved the belt over the machinery spaces from 25mm to 114mm (4.5”). Main belt: 114mm (4.5”) (4” in places on sides). 1.8m high. Magazine Box: 111mm (4.4”) Deck: 25-38mm (1-1.5”) Turrets: 25mm (1”) All over the turret. Including Barbettes. Overall, the armour is nothing especially exciting, average at best, the citadel region should be similar to that of the Leander or Edinburgh, as in just over the waterline. Probably inferior to the Myoko in terms of bouncing shells, although the citadel would be smaller. Definitely better than ships like Pensacola or Shchors/Projekt 28 however. The bigger weakness would come in the form of the turrets. Having only 1” (25mm) armour all over means you will lose turrets quite often which is going to be a moderate annoyance. There is also a 1.6m torpedo bulge that would offer some limited protection from torpedoes. At Scapa flow, 3rd November 1941. Having been repaired, she has gained and lost features, notably the sternwalk, unique to her, is gone. A KGV class lurks in the background behind the cruiser. MAIN BATTERY – 4x2 203mm The RN 8”/50 Mk.VII should perform quite similarly to the USN & IJN 8” guns already in game, firing a 116kg shell at 855mps, meaning similar shell arcs. Although the Royal Navy entry has only 8 guns in a conventional 2 fore and aft twin turrets, the RoF can be improved to compensate for this gun barrel disadvantage compared to the Myoko or Pensacola historically the RoF in practice was 3-4RPM (15-20s), but designed for 5-6RPM (10-12s), and Kent herself achieved 5RPM on trials. Hence a 5RPM or 12s reload seems perfectly adequate for Kent to remain competitive. This would be basically the same as Yorck/Entwurf I/10. However, this could be a little too much, so 4.5RPM(13.3s) could be appropriate as well, given this ship beats the Yorck in quite a few ways, and the German should have an advantage somewhere. The range should be adequate, but not especially long. About 15km seems reasonable, or 15.4km like Fiji, & Belfast. The turret traverse would be 6 degrees a second, or 30s for 180 degrees. Distinctly middle of the pack, although the intended 8 degrees a second would give a 22s time, which would be quite comfortable for an 8” cruiser. SECONDARY BATTERY – 4x2 102mm Originally, Kent had 2, later increased to 3 single 4”/45 Mk.V (102mm) per side, but the 1937-8 refit changed these out for 2 twin 4”/45 Mk.XVI per side, although in game they are shown in game by the mount, the Mk.XIX. This gives Kent, the same secondary battery as Leander, Fiji & Belfast. The guns are not terrible, 6% chance of fire, 5km range and a 3s reload, but they are secondaries and count for precious little. AA BATTERY – 2x 8 40mm Pom Pom Mounts, (4x2 102mm) As a starting point, Kent in her 1938/9 condition after her major refit, she had 2x 4 12.7mm, 2 Octuple pompoms (2pdr/40mm), and her 4 twin 4”/102mm turrets which were dual purpose. She retained this set up until 1941, when she went for refit again after getting torpedoed. 4x 2 102mm – DPS 38 @ 5km 2x 8 40mm – DPS 40 @ 2.5km 2x 4 12.7mm – DPS 11 @ 1.2km That would do as a stock hull, it is not especially good though, and WG may choose to have a midwar Kent as the stock hull. After repair, improved radar systems and 6 or 7 20mm Oerlikons were added. Which would bump up her DPS at short range, and later on, she traded in her catapult and 12.7mm for another 6 20mm Oerlikons, and then replacing 6 of those single 20mm for 3 dual 20mm. She finished the war in that condition, 3x 2 20mm, 6x 1 20mm, 2x 8 40mm, 4x 2 102mm. Not brilliant AA by any standard of the imagination, and it would be interesting what players would prefer, giving up the catapult for better AA, though still not too good. The nearest counterpart would be Myoko in my opinion. The radars added should help give the AA armament some extra DPS, but I am not blessed with the understanding of the AA mechanics yet. One interesting thing to note is that the 8” main armament was intended to be DP, with a 70 degree elevation, but that would not appear in game, probably because the 8” proved so inadequate in the AA role. TORPEDOES & AIRCRAFT – Mounted on the deck either side, is a quadruple torpedo launcher. These fired 21”/533mm Mk.V or VII torpedoes, but by WW2, the Mk.IX was in play, with it’s 10km and 62kn in game. And I trust that since Kent, should be tier 7, that WG not fluff the stats and give it the utterly wrong 8km torpedoes that beleaguer Leander & Fiji. Kent, has access to a catapult unless, as discussed earlier, it is traded out of AA systems. The catapult could house either a Walrus spotter plane or a Hawker Osprey, as on Perth. Again, 3rd November 1941. This time the port side distinctive camouflage pattern is shown. I also added a digital representation of the ships crest in, because why not. Gives more of a tangible connection to the ship to me. SPEED – 31.5kn This speed will get you places. But it is not fast, especially since every other tier 7 cruiser in game at the moment is faster than this, even if Yorck/Entwurf I/10 only beats her by 0.5kn. This speed should allow for a measured style of gameplay, not rushing in too quickly like a lot of cruiser can do. MANEUVERABILITY & CONCEALMENT – Kent has the distinctive county class profile, of 3 raked funnels, but her concealment should be quite good. She has not got tall or blocky superstructures, so I would think a detection range of between 11 and 12.5km would suit her just fine. In keeping with RN cruiser trends, the detection range is a strength, and allows a sneakier playstyle, though with 8” guns that is less relevant. The Kent sub-class was 192m long, and the class was traditionally praised with good seaworthiness, which can be in part represented by a quick rudder time, and the turning circle should be roughly 680m. Not USN standard and therefore not as good for dodging as they would, but the same as Belfast, and far better than the Japanese or soviet cruiser entries at the tier. CONSUMABLES, CAMOUFLAGE & CAPABILITIES – Personally, I don’t think Kent really needs any special consumables. She is a bog-standard tier 7 cruiser, no gimmicks, and is average in most regards. She would probably get hydro and defensive AA, alongside the catapult aircraft. The unique trait would at most be the walrus spotter plane. Any further consumables like the smoke generator or HP repair would take an already good/average ship into the realms of overpowered. (*cough* Atago). As for a premium camouflage, Kent has quite a few options. Since Kent, is to a certain extent unique in appearance compared to her sisters, she should get her own camo. So below I have posted a link to a source that gives very nice images of HMS Kent and details of her career through WW2. I personally think the September 1941 camouflage should be the premium one, since it has a decent variety of colours and patterns. Link. I am a little nervous of either scanning my RN camouflage book in or taking pictures of a website it says: No, thou shalt not! So this is the next best thing, though the colours are off. This is what I would hope her premium camouflage would be, but the Green toned down, darker blue areas made Black, and as far as I know, there was no green or blue on the funnels. Alternatively, instead of me giving a long winded and probably inaccurate description, you could click on ze link in the camouflage section to decide for yourself which dress suits the lady best. CONCLUSION – So, in Kent, what we have is a distinctly average tier 7 heavy cruiser. She doesn’t really excel at much, she can put out damage with reasonable effectiveness with a well balanced main armament, her armour is nothing special, and probably a little on the weak side. The story is the same for AA, while torpedoes and maneuverability are both good points in my book. There isn’t really a specific role this ship could play except support, unless WG tweak the shells or consumables This could happen, but I would prefer it not. We need at least 1 normal RN line, and Heavy cruisers can be it for the most part. PROS – - Decent guns with a good RoF - Long ranged torpedoes either side. Single fire ability. - Should have reasonable concealment. - Good RoF and potential damage output. - Large HP pool. CONS – - A little slow compared to other tier 7 cruisers. - Turrets very vulnerable to incapacitation. - Below average to adequate AA A shipbucket rendition of HMS Kent (54) as she appeared in 1944. I am aware that there are no pictures showing her stern in detail in this review, and hence I have quasi-rectified this! Though having a full-side on view of a potential tier 7 cruiser is useful enough.
  9. And War History Online does it again: Pictures: Life and Death of the German Heavy Cruiser Admiral Graf Spee I wonder if W.H.O. staffers play WOWS. Or maybe it's just a coincidence...
  10. So, I was surprised that with the release of the Perth, WG decided to create a new faction (The Commonwealth) rather than just have it as a branch of the UK faction. This obviously has downsides for Captain training and so on. But it does raise the question: Will non-premium ships ever be added to this new faction? If so, what would they be? Whilst there are quite a few countries that form the Commonwealth, not many had material navies during the Second World War; only Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (happy to be corrected). There are a range of 'famous' ships from these countries, such as the light cruiser HMNZS Achilles which fought at the Battle of the River Plate, HMAS Sydney that was destroyed off the Western Australian coast by a materially less capable Dutch auxillary cruisers, HMCS Haida which fought in battles that destroyed 15 enemy ships, or HMAS Melbourne which was Australia's last aircraft carrier. I imagine that some, or all, of these will become Premium ships mainly for their quirkiness (though given that HMAS Perth was of a similar class to Achilles and Sydney and already exists, these might be an exception). The other issue is that, for the most part, Commonwealth countries operated UK ships - sometimes with local modifications, sometimes just purchasing directly off UK production runs. So, there isnt any material gameplay reason to have them separate as a faction. The exception is whether you engage in some totally made up speculation about the type of ships these countries would want to build. I can think immediately of two types: Canada, wanting ships with strong ASW capability given the sea lines of communication between North America and the UK that was patrolled by German U-Boats. However, given Submarines will never be a thing in WoWS, this design philosophy appears pointless. Australia, which was at the edge of supply lines to its key allies in the UK (and armies fighting in North Africa) as well as the US (with armies fighting in south-east Asia). This could be a more interesting framework. OTOH, New Zealand would have continued to do whatever London wanted them to do; ie nothing particularly imaginative other than providing ships and/or crews here and there. The 'Australian framework', for want of a better term, implies a Commonwealth tech tree line of convoy protection type ships - ie, destroyers and light cruisers similar to the UK light cruiser line (of which, HMAS Perth would be a premium). But it is not a huge leap of imagination that, if ties of empire and money weren't such a problem, Australia might have wanted to build types of ship that could effectively attack Japan's supply lines that were established as part of the 'Co-Prosperity Sphere'. This is not totally off the cards, as Australia did run some UK-built heavy cruisers (HMA Ships Canberra, Australia and Shropshire) of the 8-inch County Class. Turns out that during the First World War, the RAN even had a battlecruiser in the form of HMAS Australia. Commerce raiders, in the popular imagination of today, were really only built by Germany (eg, Graf Spee). But perhaps a heavy cruiser concept could be viable for the Commonwealth faction. Noting that, other than the County class ships, pretty much any design in a heavy cruiser line would be a paper ship, such ships would want to have: Spotter aircraft, to detect enemy commerce ships at range; Endurance for long missions far from friendly ports; Armour sufficient to protect key spaces against 6 inch guns - the maximum expected by convoy escorts; Guns sufficient to destroy convoy escorts (initially 8 inch, later 10 inch); and Secondaries (max 6 inch, prolly 5 inch) and/or torpedoes to finish off abandoned commerce ships. In game terms, these ships would be akin to the soon-to-be-released Graf Spee premium ship and similar German heavy cruisers, but could have their own UK-inspired quirks (eg smoke or radar). They would be competitive with, but play differently to, Japanese Myoko class and similar cruisers. So, questions for GD are: how do you see the Commonwealth faction developing in WoWS? Do you think a heavy cruiser line would be a valuable addition to the game by offering something different? Or do you want more CLs or DDs instead?
  11. CA Strategies?

    So, I bought Atago and it is one sexy beast. But, I learned that it's a floating citadel. Is the strategy to stay a bit farther back, use islands, and move in groups of 3 or more? That's what's the best I came up with.
  12. Baltimore

    So far I've clocked 52 games on the Baltimore. My impressions are as follows: She's a handsome ship, with fine lines and interesting design. The concealment is decent and allows to approach a target and engage at a comfortable range, as long as you don't get spotted first. She's on the average side of speed, the Baltimore won't go on a chase and catch the other one with ease. Has great AA, especially if boosted, it is ridiculous and thwarts tiers 8 and 9 planes easily, 10s are really hard to kill though. Lots of HP and decent armor. Secondaries are decent, but "drunken gunners ftw" still affects her greatly. Rudder is manageable once fully upgraded, but still slow to turn. Good firing arcs, capable of shooting with 9 guns at a comfortable angle, not the best though. However not everything is good about her. Guns are bad, and not the wishy-washy bad, in which you can say they are bad but the range is good, or they are bad but fire fast enough. No, they are simply bad, just bad, bad guns. Their ROF is slow, they turn slow, they get taken out very easily, have no range and my 2 biggest gripes: Baltimore guns lack a punch. It feels as if I'm shooting gliders, or shell with parachutes. It is as bad as the Cleveland but without the ROF to mitigate for the horrendous trajectories and slowness. At close range, these guns can't penetrate an Atago, brawling, these guns can't citadel a Roon. They are just bad. They lack the punch, the speed, the trajectory, to even be worth firing, you might as well spray HE and thank WG for not fixing how broken HE is. I don't know if AP is overpenetrating everyting or these guns just plain suck. Slower, shorter range and weak, not even a big alpha to mitigate... Baltimore guns sound terrible. No really, their sound is awful. They sound as if they are gas powered, like BB guns, which would be appropriate considering the aforementioned lack of punch they have. Armour is pointless, might as well be a Pensacola or lighter, at least the Pensa can dodge stuff and run away faster. AA is useless at this point. I got 85 rating boosted and specced for it, but 2 things, first the Kutuzov matches me on a lower tier rendering my unique feature utterly useless, second the meta has no CVs. Baltimore can't carry its own weight on a fight. You might as well sail straight to the enemy and die, you do nothing, barely get kills, and mostly you're rather useless as escort (look first point about guns) against DDs, and barely any planes to protect against (and Kutuzov does the same while being a tier 8...). She's too expensive. The only way I got to make any credits on this ship is using premium and all my flags, and even then it was far-fetched. Before you tell me "learn2play", I got enough experience on CAs, over 400 matches to know how to play them. Baltimore is just weak, not average like the NO, but bad. Disclaimer, I might be mad for not being able to enjoy this ship, but I won't grind her for Des Moines, its incredibly tedious and far from fun, its a chore, the bad kind of one. How to make the Baltimore more enjoyable, after my experience: Increase the range of its guns by 11% to 16km Increase the muzzle speed of the barrels, seriously, the Pensa and New Orleans enjoy MUCH better ballistics. Improve the stopping power of the guns, right now, they feel like overgrown pea-shooters. Decrease the reloading time of guns to achieve 5 round per minute. Improve maneuverability, this thing feels like pushing a block of concrete up a sand hill. Any of the solutions above could be implemented, only using one would seriously improve her, doesn't need to receive all, its either one. Personally, I can live with the slow ROF and short range, but those trajectories and slow flight speed is what turned me off the Cleveland. Considering how the USN relies entirely on their guns, and with the technology they had at hand, you would suppose some mighty gunnery advantage, but you'd be sadly mistaken. All I want from this ship is to be relevant in a fight. As it stands, it's a weak ship. Her HP and armour serves for nothing if you are facing 16" inch guns. Better than armour, agility at those tiers, which she lacks. Guns are on the "meh" to "horrible" side of things, and that's all. It's a one trick pony, but that trick is AA, which comes to no play right now, or very limited, and there's a new pony in town with the same trick that runs for cheaper...tell me, what's this ship good for again? It saddens me, since I enjoyed these ships, and spent lots and lots of credits to get to her, I was actually excited, and then the match started crashing my hopes the forums were just exagerating (like when people complain about the Pensacola). Sorry, can't recommend this ship right now. I want to do it, but I can't with a clear conscience. EDIT: rewrote and added some points, improved quality of expression, everything without being angry at the ship.
  13. Hello Fellow Captains, I have started a few threads here and thought since I am currently in the MOGAMI grinding my way to Ibuki, I thought I would get some insight from those who have her. I would like to get the following from you: What you like/dislike about her Battle Reports/Good/Bad/Tactics Advise on new T9 players on setting up this cruiser Captain skills that benefit IBUKI Misc - screen shots, custom skins whatever you feel about Ibuki - I love screen shots of the IJN ships... Cannot get enough of them ! Thanks for your help so far I loved grinding my way from T5-T8 with this forums help
  14. Furutaka rant!!

    Sooooo im FURIOUS!! Theyve finally added the furutaka into the game, my favorite japanese heavy cruiser of wwii.. and they dont even give you the wwii furutaka!! you get 3 hulls when you get the furutaka. A 1926, 1930 and a 1936 hull. All hulls have 6x 8" guns in single turrets! furutaka, as she faught in wwii, had 6x 8" guns in 3 dual turrets in a similar layout to aoba! why not include a furutaka 1942 hull?! that would show her as she looked at guadal canal, also would increase her AA capabilitys which in none of the current hulls is any good whatso ever. i get it it has to be slightly worse than aoba, yes. but either way she still has 6 8" guns, so why not include the dual turrets? and neither furutaka nor kako lived past 1942 so aoba definatly got more AA which lived up to 1945 i think. BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!! Wargaming already went through the trouble of modeling a 1942 furutaka! you can see a picture of it in the fan pack! SO WHY NOT GIVE IT TO US!? i know im making a big deal about this but, as a military modeller aesthetics are everything, and frankly i think the 6 turret furutaka is ugly compared to her aobaesque appearance of wwii. man, i feel like making a hitler rants video on this hehe.
  15. USS Wichita CA-45

    So I was recently reading about the USS Wichita and found out how "special" it was. She was originaly supposed to be a New Orleans class Cruiser but she ended up being a class of her own The Wichita's hull was that of a Brooklynn class cruiser but up armored since she was a heavy cruiser. The Wichita had the typical US Heavy cruiser armorment of 9 8/55 inch rifles in three triple turrets. The Wichita's AA armorment was rather odd from other US Cruisers she had the 5/38 inch guns in single turrets that US Destroyers had. This is her in 1940 and you can get a real good look at the armorment The Wichita being a very special ship, she would make an great premeium ship. I do want to see her in the game but she wouldnt really fit well in the normal Heavy Cruiser branch because there was only the Wichita. However her tire if she was added is what I find hard to pin point. The Wichita have the same main gun layout as most every US Heavy Cruiser exculding the Pensacola. I personally fell that she would be best at Tier 8 because she has better DP guns but worse small arms. I couldnt find any image of the Wicita with 40mm Bofors or 20mm Oerlikons. Im sure they were added after 1942, but I cant find them. Thats all for now, thanks for reading
  16. Future Fleet Project (Cruiser) Back again, and this time I am bringing in some heavier firepower with my newest design. Let me introduce you to the features of my new cruiser. What We Have Today: ​Ticonderoga Class The current cruiser in service today is the Ticonderoga class. These are effective Aegis vessels that, while classified as multi-role vessels, excel in anti-air warfare. However, they are built on the hull of a destroyer, thus they are lightly armored and suffer from structural issues. It has been argued by many that the cruisers offer no real benefits over the smaller Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers. Zumwalt Class Though they are considered Destroyers, the Zumwalt class are cruisers in everything but name. Larger than the Ticonderoga class and carrying 6" guns, the Zumwalts were envisioned to carry out the surface bombardment role following the deactivation of the Iowa class battleships.Though the Zumwalts are a step in the right direction, they are potentially weakened by the inclusion of multiple technologies and naval philosophies. MY DESIGN I sought to create a true successor to the cruiser design theory. Something with heavier weaponry and armor compared to the smaller destroyers. The delicate design of the Zumwalt class is replaced with a tougher, more robust design. While my previous designs, the Frigate and Destroyer designs are built to specialize in anti-submarine and anti-air duties respectively, my cruiser is to be the premier general purpose anti-surface warship. It will specialize in the destruction of targets both on the sea and on land. The foundation for my design was the Virginia class nuclear cruiser, the last double ended cruiser. Though able ships, the Virginia class cruisers found themselves arriving at a bad time, the cold war had ended and ships were placed into reserve to conserve money. The Virginia class was approaching their overhaul point and it was decided to scrap them to conserve money. The decommissioning of these vessels was criticized by many as the vessels had plenty of potential left in them. Using the Virginia class as the basis, I took the basic design and improved upon it. I enlarged the hull and added features to make the ship more stealthy. I also widened the hull to improve stability and sea-keeping, ensuring an effective gun platform. I then added the weaponry of the Zumwalt class into the design, but added more weapons. This served to truly bring the ship into levels of firepower more appropriate for a cruiser. The AGS is carried over, but another gun is added aft, making the vessel a "double ended" design. I also utilized the traditional secondary weapons arrangement utilized by WW2-era cruisers. This would ensure excellent arcs of firepower, allowing the ship to effectively engage threats in any direction. A feature that is noticeably absent from the design is a large, spacious hanger. Such a feature is largely mandatory for modern warships, however it also takes up considerable space and places more top weight on a ship. Taking a feature from the Virginia class, I placed the hanger under the pad, serviced by an elevator. The drawbacks of this arrangement is slower launching and recovering of helicopters as well as a tighter space. In contrast, the location allows for better stability and allows more deck space to be dedicated to weaponry. I designed the superstructure to follow along the lines of the Zumwalt design. However, I also had to contend with numerous issues that plague the Zumwalt. Stability was increased by shrinking the superstructure and removing the hanger. The smaller superstructure in addition to the widened hull allows for a traditional steel structure to be carried, increasing reliability and protection over previous vessels. The last truly notable feature of the ship is its secondary weapon mounts. While all navies are attempting to increase the stealthiness of their ships, they have found that weaponry is difficult to hide effectively. I resolved this issue by creating retractable mounts. When not in combat, the secondary weapons are secured below decks under retracting covers. When needed, the covers slide back and the weapons are raised to the deck level. This system allows the ship to carry a heavy weapons load, but remain stealthier than even the smaller Zumwalt destroyers. Features: Firepower 155mm/62 Advanced Gun System Primary firepower is provided by three 155mm/62 cannons. Two mounts are forward and the last one is placed aft of the superstructure. Though still relatively new, the guns have shown themselves to be rather potent during testing. Able to maintain a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun, each mount has the same level of firepower as a howitzer battery. Using the LRLAP guided projectiles, the cruiser can throw its weight to distances over 75 miles. The gun can also perform the spectacular MSRI impact, lobbing six shells that all strike a target simultaneously. Features such as this will allow the cruiser to excel in general shore bombardment duties. Each gun will carry 300 shells in automated stores for a total of 900 shells, a further 900 shells can be carried in auxiliary store rooms. OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid Secondary firepower is provided by four OTO Melara 76mm SR guns. These were chosen over the Phalanx due to their extended engagement ranges. They also can easily engage air and surface targets alike. When not in use, they are retracted into the hull to reduce the ship's signature. The cannon is capable of firing 120 shells per minute and at ranges four times that of the Phalanx 20mm. Mk 57 PVLS The Cruiser will make use of the newest mk.57 VLS. These are arrange in pods along the ships sides. This system increases the ship's ability to survive hits and prevents a munition explosion from potentially crippling the ship. The design carries 160 launch tubes, each capable of handling a single Tomahawk, ASROC, or anti-air missile. Smaller RIM-162 ESSM missiles can be quad packed into each cell, allowing for a maximum of 640 missiles to be carried. RIM-116 Launcher In addition to the 76mm guns, additional close range missile protection is provided by two RIM-116 launchers with one fore and another aft. The launcher can engage a variety of incoming anti-ship missiles out to 5.6 mi.The system has thus far proven to be extremely effective in its intended role. Like the cannons, the RIM-116 launchers are retracted into the ship when not in use. Armor Armoring is a radical departure from previous ships. Though not thick, this cruiser is designed to withstand punishment. Extensive subdividing is used to withstand battle damage and prevent flooding. An armored belt is carried around the hull, varying from 6" to 4". The armor is designed to be capable of withstanding 155mm artillery shells (A likely threat during shore bombardment) and surface gunnery employed by enemy ships. In addition to the belt, during heavy combat the crew will operate the ship from its center. There they will be located with an armored citadel, further protecting them damage. Lastly, the vital spaces will be protected by additional layers of armor backed with kevlar spall liners. Propulsion Currently, there are two potential power plants for this design: 1) Gas turbines feeding an integrated power system. This in turn supplies juice to two electric Permanent Magnetic motors (PMM) which in turn drive screws. Gas turbines will likely be cheaper up front and remain cheaper and easier to replace. --OR-- 2) Same system with above, but using nuclear propulsion. Benefits of this system include an abundance of power to feed future systems. In addition, the ship can cruise at high speeds for longer periods. Overview That about wraps up this topic for the moment. Depending on feedback, I will later come on and tweak the design and add further improvements. Likewise, I will also adjust this topic accordingly. All that is left is to post the current crop of specifications for this vessel. Length - 625' Beam - 80' Draft - 27' Displacement - 15,000 tons standard (18,000 tons full load) Propulsion - Twin gas turbines (or) reactors feeding IPS system. Twin electric PMM motors each driving a screw. Speed - 32 knots Range - 12,000 nautical miles at 15 knots Compliment - 550 (400 during peace time) Weapons: 3x AGS 155mm/62 4x OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid 160x Mk57 Vertical launch cells 2x RIM-116 Launchers Renders Front Side Above As always, I hope you enjoyed the topic. Feel free to comment or make a suggestion below. Next up, I will introduce my newest design. When my cruiser is not enough and a statement must be made, the only logical conclusion is to bring in the bigger guns. So look forward to my battleship to make a splash in the forums soon! Until next time