Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'kongo'.
Found 2 results
In 1935, the British built Battlecruiser Kongo was dry docked to be uparmored. With the reconstruction complete in 1937, the Kongo was reclassified as a "Fast Battleship". But were the Kongos even worthy of that classification? She had a main armor belt of 203mm, and turret armor of 254mm and barbette armor of 229mm. For comparison, the Dunkerque, which as conceived as a Battlecruiser in concept (meant to counter the Panzerschiff) seemingly had thicker armor. The Dunkerque had a main armor belt of 225mm, turret armor of 330mm, and barbette armor of 340mm. And it has been said that the Dunkerque could not even resist the 11" guns the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. The Dunkerque was officially classified as "navires de ligne" but given what she was designed to do, and what her armor could and could not resist, it would be fair to term her a Battlecruiser. But...if the Dunkerque has thicker armor then the Kongo, and the Dunkerque can't even resist the smallest of post-dread Battleship main-battery guns, then can the Kongos truly be considered "Fast Battleships? Was this just propaganda? Is there more to the armor scheme of the Kongo's then general armor thickness? Just what kind of guns could the "Fast Battleship" Kongos even resist?
jpdillon510 posted a topic in Battleship EraSo, I'm sure a lot of you may have noticed that by the time they sank, all the Kongo Fast Battleships looked pretty different from each other. After I had bought the Kongo a few months ago, though, I was sort of confused. You see, the Kongo looks like this... But the ingame Kongo looks like this! Should/could Wargaming fix this? I also saw some arpeggio ships still sailing around, and all of the Kongo sisters there are reskinned. Does it even matter to anyone? Personally, I would love to see our real Kongo.