Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'us'.



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
    • 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
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

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 15 results

  1. I think seaplane carriers would be a vary viable addition to the game. Seaplane carriers would generally be relatively small and/or slow with large aircraft with very big HP pools, but very few aircraft per squadron and only 1-2 per attack. They would have weaker bomb and torpedo armaments, and weak/few/no fighters. Their primary armament would be very large aircraft spotting ranges and ASW planes. The best three nations to have them, is the US, Japan, and maybe Britain. US: US seaplane tenders would be slower, with planes that have very high HP pools, sometimes up to twice their aircraft carrier' counterparts HP pool, They would either have leval bombing with SAP bombs, or they would dive at a slight angle and attack with HE Ships: Hull C Langley upgrade would lead into the US seaplane tender line, switching from the pre-refit Langley to its seaplane carrier form. She would have one squadrons of NC-11 bombers, with one squadron of 4 bombers attacking in groups of 2 with each bomber carrying 4 250 SAP bombers in a level bombing capacity with 2,000 HP, and one squadron of 2 bombers, with 1 per attack with each bomber carrying 4 HE bombs, attacking in a slight dive. The bombers would have 2,250 HP She would also have one squadron of 4 SOC Seagull ASW plans, with 1,265 HP each The first Seaplane Tender would be USS Wright AV-1 at tier V She would carry 4 P2Y-1 bombers that attack in groups of 1, each plane would carry 2 1000lb SAP bombs which deal 2,220 HP each, and each bomber has a speed of 98 kts, and 2,750 HP each She would also carry 4 P2Y-1 bombers that attack in groups of 1, each plane would carry 6 250 HP bombs which deal 1,950 HP each, and each bomber has a speed of 103 kts, with 2,825 HP each She would also carry SOC-3 ASW planes with 1,500 HP each and , These can be Upgraded to OS2U-1 ASW planes with 1,750 HP each. The ship would go 15.3 kts, and have 2 5in/38 caliber DPAA guns, 2*AA 3 in/50 caliber AAA guns, 2 .50 caliber AA guns The Second Ship in the line would be the USS Curtiss, AV-4 at tier VII She would carry 4 P2Y-3 bomber is attack groups of 2, each bomber carrying 4 500 lb HE bombs dealing 3,760 HP each, each bomber has a speed of 106 kts, and 3,120 HP each.These can be upgraded to either PBY-3 bombers with either 4 1000lb HE bombs, or 4 1000lb SAP bombs, HE bombs do 4,500 HP each, the SAP bombs deal 5,250 HP damage each. She will also have PBY-3 Torpedo bombers that carry 2 Mark 8 torpedoes that deal 4,765 damage each. She also carriers 4 SC-1 Seahawk ASW bombers with 2,000 HP each She would go 20 kts and carry 4*5/38 DPAA guns and 4*4 40 mm AA guns The Third ship in line would be the tier IX AVD Childs She would carry one squadron 6 PBM-1 bombers attacking in groups of 2 carrying 2 2,000lb SAP bombs dealing 10,500 HP per hit with each plane having 6,265 HP each and a speed of 125 kts. She would carry another squadron of 6 PBM-1 bombers attacking in groups of 2 carrying 2 Mark 13 torpedoes dealing 6,500 HP per hit with each plane having 6,500 HP each and a speed of 115 kts. She also carries 6 SC-2 Seahowk ASW bombers with 2,250 HP each She goes 25 kts and carriers 2*3/50 DPAA guns and 5 20 mm AA guns as well as Depth Charges and 5 km detectibility range Please comment any suggestions that you believe to be helpful
  2. Shannon_Lindsey

    Benham and Black

    Is there any chance of either the Black or the Benham becoming regularly available again? The wonderful thing about US tech tree DDs is that they can effectively be built into Gun boats, torpedo boats, of AA boats. The premiums tend to be more specialized. That said, I hope to be able to keep a variety of US DDs available depending on division and/or clan need in the future. I will not be running AA boats on odd tiers for obvious reasons. The thing is, since Fletcher can go either gun or torpedo, I would like to set it up to compliment if either of the tier 9 premiums become available again since Benham is a great torpedo boat, and Black is a really good gun boat. Any thoughts?
  3. Hello all, If WG wants to add a Tier 6 Premium Normal Aircraft Carrier for US Navy, USS Wasp would be a good idea. Ship Length - 225.9 meters ~ 226 meters Beam - 33.2 meters Draft - 6.1 meters Speed - 29.5 knots Cost - same as Ark Royal and Erich Loewenhardt (6,300 doubloons) Secondary Armament Eight 127mm guns Firing Range - 4.5km Rate of Fire - 13.33 shots/minute Reload Time - 4.5s HE shell - 127mm HE/HC Mk36 (Same as Ranger) Maximum HE shell Damage - 1,800 AA Defence 1 sixteen 28mm AA guns Average damage per second - between 24 - 34 Firing range - 3 - 4km AA Defence 2 twenty-four 12.7mm Browning Average damage per second - between 90 - 120 Firing Range - 1.2km Maneuverability Top Speed - 29.5 knots Turning radius... Rudder Shift time... Concealment Detectability by Sea Ranger - 14.22km Wasp - 14 - 15km Detectability by Air Ranger - 10.66km Wasp - 11 - 12km Aircraft Compliment Rocket Aircraft - F4U Corsair Rockets in payload - 8 Damage - 2,000 Fire chance - 7% Cruise speed - 130 - 150 Hit Point - 1460 Squadron size - 6, 3 per attack run/ 2 per attack run (Tell me what you rather) Number of Aircraft on deck - 9 Aircraft restoration time - 45 - 60 seconds Torpedo Bombers - TBF Avenger Torpedos in payload - 1 Range - 2.5km Damage - 6,467 Flooding chance - 52% Cruising speed - 110 - 130 Hit points - 1,800 Squadron size - 8, 2 per attack run Number of Aircraft on deck - 12 Aircraft restoration time - 50 - 65 seconds Dive Bombers - SBD Dauntless Bombs in payload - 1 Bomb type - AP(according to Enterprise, If a light cv is added, bomb type would be HE) Maximum damage - 8,000 - 10,000 Cruising speed - 90 - 110 Hit points - 1,890 Squadron Size - 6, 3 per attack run Number of Aircraft on deck - 9 Restoration time - 40 - 55 seconds
  4. Which should i grind for - Des Moines or Worcester??
  5. Lexington-class battlecruiser I think this would be a very exciting option for a tier V-VII American Battleship. Here is a little info about it. Final Design SpecificationsDisplacement: 44,638 tons full load; 51,217 tons emergency full loadDimensions: 874 x 105 x 31 feet/266.5 x 32.1 x 9.5 metersPropulsion: Turbo-electric, 16 295 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp, 33.25 knotsCrew: 1297 (1326 as flagship)Armor: 7 inch belt, 1.5-1.75 inch deck, 5-9 inch barbettes, 5-11 inch turrets, 6-12 inch CTArmament: 4 dual 16"/50cal, 16 single 6"/53cal, 4 single 3"/50cal AA, 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (above water), 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (submerged) Concept/Program: A group of six large battlecruisers ordered in 1916 as fast "battle scouts", part of a large program of fleet scouting ships, which included many smaller cruisers and destroyers. These ships were essentially scaled up from contemporary cruiser designs, rather than scaled down from battleship designs, as was typical foreign practice. The ships would have been large and powerful, but poorly protected and thus vulnerable in battle. By 1921 the weaknesses of the design, and of the type in general, were apparently recognized, and consideration was given to either converting some of the ships to aircraft carriers or building new carriers using materials assembled for the battlecruisers. Ultimately all six were cancelled under the Washington Treaty, and two were completed as carriers. Class: Sometimes identified as the Constellation class, apparently because Constellation (CC 2) was the first to be laid down. These were the only US Navy ships to which the battlecruiser classification was applied. The designation "CC", which was not formally applied until the 17 July 1920 fleet redesignation, is thought to have been derived from "Cruiser, Capital", indicating their status as capital ships. Design: The original (1916) design for these ships was quite different from their final design. In 1916 the planned specifications were: 36,350 tons full load with 10 14"/50cal and 18 5"/51cal guns, very light armor, half of the 24 boilers located above the protective deck, and seven funnels. The entire program was suspended in 1917 to facilitate construction of merchant ships for WWI service. The class was completely redesigned 1917-1919, taking into account improved technology such as watertube boilers, foreign development of more powerful ships, the need for improved armor and anti-torpedo protection, and the lessons of Jutland. The resulting design was considerably better than the original version, but still relatively lightly armored. Why should the Lexington Battlecruiser be in the game as a regular ship and what historical and game play benefits does it add? The Lexington was meant to be part of the greatest battle fleet that never existed. This battle fleet was to consist of 6 ships of the South Dakota’s class with 4 triple mount 16.5” guns, 4 ships of the Colorado Class with 16” guns, 6 ships of the Lexington Class battle cruiser with 4 triple mount 14” guns, followed up by another nine battle ships from the Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California classes with 14” guns. This Battle fleet would have been superior to any single battle fleet in the world, including the one ran by the Royal Navy. This fleet was never built due to the limitations of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that put a limit on the total tonnage of the Battle Fleets for the US Britain Japan, France and Italy. For the British this treaty was about not being out paced by the economic and industrial might of the US and it’s planned battle fleet it was building, for the US it was about limiting the size of the Japanese fleet to a manageable level to maintain control of the pacific. Given the fact that these ships were never able to be built how cool would it be to be able to play what could have been. The Lexington was not just a paper ship it was actually on order and partially built when it and its sister ship were converted to aircraft carriers the Lexington and Saratoga which went on to play significate roles in WWII. Another important factor for the Lexington being added is the many design changes and the different upgrades that can be associated with the ship class. “Like the South Dakota-class battleships also included in the 1916 Act, their construction was repeatedly postponed in favor of escort ships and anti-submarine vessels. During these delays, the class was redesigned several times; they were originally designed to mount ten 14-inch guns and eighteen five-inch guns on a hull with a maximum speed of 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph), but by the time of the definitive design, these specifications had been altered to eight 16-inch guns and sixteen six-inch guns, with a speed of 33.25 knots (61.58 km/h; 38.26 mph) to improve hitting power and armor (the decrease in speed was mostly attributed to the additions of armor).” Here Are just a Few of the Different looks from the redesigns With the level of design and redesign the sheer amount of historical documentation on this ships class would be massive, which could support the high level of historical accuracy of any WG recreation. The Lexington was order as a direct response to the Japanese Kongo Battle cruiser (which may be in the game). The design of the Lexington was heavily based on and an improvement of Britain Invincible class battle cruiser, which will most likely be added to the Britain line. Hopefully if we can get enough people interested in the Lexington Battlecruiser War Gaming seriously considering add this amazing ship.
  6. There is a wide variety of US destroyer classes that existed but have never been available in WOWS. By creatively splitting the type it would be possible to create two separate lines, a torpedo line and a gun line allowing us to play most of the US classes. The prototypes are available to do it, it’s just a matter of how to divide them up. So, here is my proposed split: Shared Classes: 2 Sampson 3 Wickes Adjustment to the current line which would become the torpedo line: 4 Clemson 5 Nicholas 6 Farragut 7 Mahan 8 Benham- This class gives up one 5” gun from the Mahan in exchange for another torpedo launcher for a total of 16 tubes! Another 200 tons and 2 kts 9 Fletcher 10 Gearing Now the Gun Line 4 Cannon - Actually a destroyer escort, players would be sacrificing a great deal of speed but in exchange would get more hit points, WW2-era rapid fire guns and torpedoes and a massive AA boost that would be helpful against carriers. They couldn’t be played like regular destroyers but would be an asset if used right. Like the Yubari’s, if there’s a carrier in the game it will be very unhappy. 5 Buckley- Another destroyer escort with the advantages of the Cannon class plus 5” guns, even more hit points and more speed. 6 Porter- Designed as destroyer leaders, the Porters are pretty awesome ships on paper. In practice they were overloaded and the turrets were incapable of AA fire. These may have to be nerfed to fit in at 6. 7 Somers - Basically the porters with high angle mounts for the 5” guns. Again, more awesome on paper than in practice. 8 Benson - Stolen so the torpedo line can get a 16 torpedo destroyer. 9 Forrest Sherman- Contemporary of the Udaloy-class DD, these would have rapid fire 5” guns with wicked range and accuracy plus a substantial secondary battery. Few torpedoes but I believe these were guided, so that could make them more likely to hit. 10 Mitscher class- Destroyer leaders, huge ships, I believe there was a four gun design that could be used to give it the firepower WOWs requires instead of an ASW focus. Admittedly there is some shoehorning going on to make this line feasible. The DE’s and postwar destroyers may be challenging, and the line isn’t exactly a smooth transition from one class to the next. But the torpedo line is available for players looking for that smooth progression and the gun line, despite being cats-and-dogs would bring several ships into play that aren’t available right now.
  7. lordholland4293

    Unique Commanders

    I don't know if this has been proposed or asked before but more unique commanders with historical meaning could be added. US Commanders like Willis A Lee- Commanded USS washington at Guadalcanal *special perk for wows- 5%speed after 25 hits, move aside iam coming though-increased dispersion at 10% health. Thomas Kincaid -Commanded USS Enterprise at Guadalcanal and other actions, - special perk - carrier return speed -5%, other ideas if people have them. German, MacMillian Von Spee, Commanded German cruisers of the Falkland WWI, Special perk - Increased reload -100-150 hits, German persistent - health restoration at 10%- doesnt put out fires or floods. These commanders would be cheap like 30,000 - 40,000 coal, should be affordable for anyone. Hopefully anyone has other ideas for other countries.
  8. captain_fearless

    Where are the other carriers?

    When are we gonna get the rest of the carriers after half of the Japanese and American cv tech tree were snapped away? I wanna see an alternate cv line, maybe one that ditches rocket planes and instead has improved bombs or have better plane regeneration. I don’t wanna see them come back as premium ships does any body heard any news on this?
  9. The Gameplay Differences Generally more tanky, perhaps with a superior displacement to health ratio. Slower, well not the standard ships but the Iowa class has been vetoed for moving too fast. No special modules and slightly worse dispersion, speed can’t be the only hit this line takes Long Range, Accurate secondaries, lowered fire chance to further increase those stats. American Secondaries were dual purpose so higher AA. Worse Concealment Main Gimmick: Stretched heal This heal is as healing as USN BB heal but the cooldown start immediately rather than after, because the action time of this heal is several minutes. This heal can be stacked onto itself. This heal probably won’t save you from fires, you may want to invest captain points into DCP. Can become really tanky under light fire, this requires quite a lot of foresight, something that can be attributed to standard battleships. The Botes Ok, this part isn’t as glamorous as the lines other people suggest. But have some guns to gnaw on. T4 USS Delaware 5 Twin 305mm turrets T5 USS Florida 5 Twin 305mm turrets These are more or less fillers to keep the people who like historical ships happy by being different classes. This area could see an improvement. T6 USS Oklahoma 2 Triple 356mm turrets 2 Twin 356mm turrets Now I might be biased towards Oklahoma Azur Lane, but I put her here because she is in the same MM as Kaga and didn’t find faildivs to be very future proof. So more history to you. T7 USS Tennessee 4 Triple 356mm turrets If we can avoid repeating a class then we should. Also California is T7, it wouldn’t be that hard to adjust her to match the theme of this line. T8 USS South Dakota 3 Triple 406mm turrets Super anticipated, not part of the NC class, and fits the theme better than NC. We are now entering the hard part of paperships and from what I could find, the USN is very limited here. T9 (Nerfed Montana Class) 4 Triple 406mm turrets There was also the old Sodak paper boats but it would be weird to come after Sodak. So basically take Montana, make it overally weaker but give her the changes above. T10 (Tillman Mix) 4 maybe 5 Triple 406mm turrets Everyone wants a Tillman so here it is. If we were to take the reduced dispersion to heart we could even get a 5th turret. There would need to be quite a few of creative liberties here. The pinnacle of the BB split, beefy, lots of guns, constant secondary fire, but you’ve lost the Jack of All Trades aspect of the other line.
  10. USAPatriotGamer

    Measure 22 Camo

    Do you think that the warships in the US tech tree would look nice if WG brought back the Measure 22 Camo (blue hull) from beta as a permanent camouflage option?
  11. SweetBabyRuth

    Please Create alternative US BB line

    Please world of warship developers, create an alternative line for US battleships. I know that wargaming likes making money, but y'all keep releasing "so-so" US BBs that people aren't super excited about. You have plenty of content to use, from the Tennessee class BBs to the South Dakota class. And even more of the Iowa class. Instead of putting the Ohio in the research bureau, your should make her the top tier of the alternative line. I know this seems like complaining but the community has wanted this for a very long time. More than they wanted West Virginia and more than they want California. And yes, even more than they want to regrind for an Ohio. Stop releasing premiums and make an alternative line for US BBs.
  12. MakersMike

    USN BB's - How Bad?

    I'm a new player, 324 battles in. I hadn't read up too much on the different battleships and have just researched and purchased the New Mexico. Then I searched for some information and am seeing many negative things about New Mexico and the USN line in general. Should I just stop now? One question I have is regarding some stat sites like wow-numbers.com. The USN BB's rank near the bottom for every tier for win % and damage. But they're also the number 1 most played BB in most every tier. So, are they as bad as the stats show, or are the stats somewhat misleading because every noob like me researches the USN line first so they have a lot of inexperienced players hurting the stat numbers? Should I just stop the line now, and save some dignity or is there some silver lining that I'm missing? I know it varies by play style, but I'd like to know what you think are the best BB lines in general. The Izmail looks pretty awesome so I'm starting the Russian line, and as slow as it is, I'm doing good in the British Iron Duke and enjoying it. *I'm trying to use AP when I'm seeing a lot of broadsides, so I don't become too lazy and learn bad habits relying on that HE, but it's pretty nice to set all those fires. Thanks
  13. PaulaDeen

    Russian vs. US Battleships

    Hello, post is as titled, I'm looking for some first hand comparison between Russian and US battleships. I've heard that the Russian battleships dominate in close quarters combat, but fairs quite poorly in long range. Is their long range really that poor? I have a North Carolina and I should be able to finish getting my Vladivostok today. I love both BB lines but I'm not sure which I want to bring to t10 first. I guess I'm just looking for some insight from people with both Monty and Kremlin. Pros and cons of both? Is Kremlin really that bad for long range engagements? Is Monty in a good spot now a days? Welcoming all insights and opinions! Thanks:) Paula Deen Butter Captain Butter Queen
  14. A friend of mine compiled most of the United States Navy Technical Mission to Japan from the now defunct Fischer-Tropsch Archive so that people can navigate it again in one location. https://pacificwararchive.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/reports-of-the-u-s-naval-technical-mission-to-japan-1945-1946/ He is also working on the European one now. https://pacificwararchive.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/records-of-the-u-s-naval-technical-mission-in-europe-1944-1947/ Edit: He has added a fair amount of the Pacific portions of the USSBS to the blog now. They were mostly pulled together from the Japan Air Raids website, but he made them far easier to pick through here. https://pacificwararchive.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/us-strategic-bombing-survey-pacific-war/ Edit 2: He is now working on the Japan Monographs. At first he will be filling in the Monographs that HyperWar doesn't already have up. https://pacificwararchive.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/japanese-monographs/
  15. _CrzyRandomGuy_

    US carriers vs. IJN carriers

    With the new update they made US carriers the top of the food chain again, starting at ranger I believe, you gain access to a 1/1/2 rather than a 1/1/1 that was standard for everything. But you can’t swap in for a 2/0/1 anymore, as the drawback of this new update. But it will get better. At Lexington(Tier 8) you may upgrade your DIVE bombers to equip AP bombs that can deal massive damage. These bombs were on the enterprise(Tier 8 premium carrier). At tier 9 (Essex), you have a 2/1/2, which is powerfull. Drawback, and it’s a big one, the fighters for the Essex only are stock tier 8’s and you cannot get tier 9 fighters. One thing is that the torpedo bombers past Lexington STAY at tier 8, with no upgrades to 9 or 10. But of course at Essex you can still get those AP bombs with tier 9 DB. Midway is probably the most beneficial from this update as it has a 2/2/2. With stock T9 fighters that can be upgraded to T10. Course you only have tier 8 torpedo bombers, but torpedo damage does not increase with tier. And you still get those awesome tier 10 AP dive bombers. In my opinion. Go USN as the AP bombs wreck havoc against most battleships and some cruisers, and the bombs have a INSANLY SMALL targeting reticule, that can be smaller than the superstructures on most battle ships. But you only get them at tier 8 and up. Moving on. IJN, where to start. Easy way to say how the play is swarm the skies. These carriers have a really good amount of squadrons. But that comes at a cost. When IJN fighters take a squadron of USN fighters, the USN’s are going to win, as the squadron capacity for all USN carriers is 6, beating the IJN’s 4. Plus the USN planes ( all types ) do more damage and more health. But since IJN has a 2 fighter load out that puts it a 6v8. I can’t say much more because I only really made it up to Lexington and never played a IJN carrier before. But the grind to the tier 8 Lexington is worth it because when you go into the first battle with your AP bombers bought ( point, you get stock HE so then you can upgrade them to the tier above with HE OR AP ) you can deal a CRAZY amount of damage on a battleship draining almost 7/8 of its health for certain types and if you get a good hit.
×