In response to "this" thread

[Xero_Snake]

In response to "this" thread:

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/116384-russian-tree-an-insult-to-other-navies/page__pid__2819464#entry2819464

 

As someone who has been around here for years, I got a lot to bring it all out from my chest, for all these times. By doing this, you would then name calling me an apologist, a hypocrite, a liar, a fraud, or even a sellout in the end. No. I'm speaking as a realist who his being enthusiastic of the Russian military and its histories for over 8 years.

 

The Soviet Navy back then was indeed a lackluster, we accept that as a reality back then. But people should even acknowledge that their Navy was already long hamstrung by bureaucratic politics to begin with, and was further hamstrung by the Germans who swiftly crippled their R&D by the war began before the Soviets would have a chance to fully realize their ambitious projects earlier and get the upper hands over the Germans. Judging from how the Soviets were attempting to construct a number of modern battleships, battlecruisers and light cruisers; there maybe a perspective that the Germans, through their possible espionage movements when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact took effect, deathly feared the Soviet Navy's "Big Fleet Program" growing potential. And for that, they planned out to strike the USSR as swiftly as possible to severely disrupt their progress, effectively forced the Soviet authorities to freeze most R&D and construction projects and redirecting funds to mass manufacture weapons as quick as possible in hoping to turn the tide of war in times of emergency. Hence, a cunning exploit of the flawed ideological-based government system.

 

For the Big Fleet Program, it is possible to support and make those ambitious projects a reality, but it's impossible to fully achieve them, given how flawed the nature of an authoritarian & bureaucratic system they gone through. 

 

Then after WWII, the USSR resumed the VMF's Big Fleet Program development, though revised from the old framework. Despite newer generation of technologies, they were determined to catch up with other nation's navies in other aspects of technology they were lacking back then, to reclaim their lost times, and still stick around with conventional naval artillery for their postwar surface warships until the mid-late 50's. And no, there's no such thing as a 1960 warship in here. Whoever came up with that horsecrap should be thrown into a gulag, a tasteless joke should not be considered a joke.

 

Those who claimed that their ships (excluding submarines) never engaged any enemy vessels, that's false. There were a number of warships actually encountered some and even fired shots on them, but mainly occurred on the Black Sea and much less so on the Baltic Sea because of how the Germans ensnared their navy with minefields beforehand. But nevertheless, the VMF did what it can to play its part during wartime.

 

It's difficult to excuse them for having the most postwar ships, but because of the lost times they suffered and had a lot to catch up from what they lagged behind, they still had to struggle to move on with newer technologies available to made up for their losses.

 

Well, there they are. A rag-tag fleets being a salad bowls filled with a mix of ageing WWI-era ships, contemporary inter-war warships, foreign leased comrades-in-arms, postwar greenhorns and an unfortunate stillborn potentials. Despite that they actually yield strong potential to become a force to reckon with. People treat them like a laughing stock, but it don't matter to them. Even if they got compensated with more modern ships and being named an existential mockery to the eyes of elitists, it doesn't matter. Even if they're a fraud and the navy being called an empty husk because of this in the eyes of the textbook history ideologues, it doesn't matter. Whatever those ships are, they are a family of soldiers who are willing to fight to their bitter end to fulfill their dreams to shine the navy to keep their heads up regardless of their circumstances. They will not stop pursuing as long as their ancestors' legacies keeping their esteems alive. Their dream is not wrong. They're here to stay no matter what, and you can change nothing.

 

To think that Russia is "just an Army land and nothing more"? You're dead wrong. They're more than that, since their navy is well-respected in their history for centuries.

 

And by the way, I don't stand with Stalin. I stand with Admiral Kuznetsov, because he is the father of the Soviet Navy who wanted the best for the VMF and people respects him with high regards to the point of attempting to restore his prestige rank after when Khrushchev stepped down, as well as named their today's aircraft carrier after him.

 

You want the Soviet's perspective of history, that's their history.

 

I'm not here to defend the USSR or being a WG "shill". I'm here to point out every single point that you most narrow-minded textbook self-proclaimed historians refuse to take words into consideration who rather prefer to listen to what other history ideologues want you to believe. Scoffing with blatant Russophobic narrative is more than just spitting on WG's compassion on their jobs to enjoy doing what they like other than how to make profits. You're actually fanning the toxic side of both memes and social ideology that could ensure disorder not only in the internet, but also to the real life societies. For you, it's acceptable that the West are superior and the rest are inferior, it's acceptable to tolerate anything but Russia, it's acceptable to bash and insult anything Russian, and it's acceptable to deny coexistence over some stupid partisan sentiment. Since this is their game, and they'll do what they enjoy in their jobs, and you're not gonna like it. You're gonna hate every single thing of it, and you made this happened because of the way you act, think and the way you carry yourself in the public.

 

[KalishniKat]

The point is their navy did not engage in any combat with like surface units of any other navies. Taking pot shots at Italian torpedo boats or Finnish coastal defense ships doesn't really count. To have such massive in game representation for a pathetic surface fleet is a sad attempt to rewrite the record. Every Russian cruiser after Molotov never floated in the war. Those that were extant in the war did almost nothing. We have those in game but no Brooklyn class, no Northampton class, no British anything except light cruisers...It's so skewed as to be laughable.

[Lert]

Taking pot shots at Italian torpedo boats or Finnish coastal defense ships doesn't really count.

 

And yet, people claim the Iowa class was 'proven in battle' by how they so expertly bombarded shores from a safe distance out.

 

Plus, nowhere does it claim that only navies who engaged surface fleets in fleet action are eligible for being in this game.

[TheKrimzonDemon]

"Well respected for centuries."

 

While I agree that the whole "Blahblah didn't fight doesn't deserve to be in game" is idiocy, the above made me lol hard. xD

[McDoob]

The point is their navy did not engage in any combat with like surface units of any other navies. Taking pot shots at Italian torpedo boats or Finnish coastal defense ships doesn't really count. To have such massive in game representation for a pathetic surface fleet is a sad attempt to rewrite the record. Every Russian cruiser after Molotov never floated in the war. Those that were extant in the war did almost nothing. We have those in game but no Brooklyn class, no Northampton class, no British anything except light cruisers...It's so skewed as to be laughable.

 

What does it matter if a ship has seen combat or not? I don't understand your logic there. Also, there are other ships in-game that were either never built, or built after WWII, yet you don't mention them. And finally, it takes time to put ships into the game. It is not an instantaneous process. More Brit ships are coming, according to rumor.

 

I think you are letting your anti-Russian bias affect your opinion.

[HowitzerBlitzer]

And yet, people claim the Iowa class was 'proven in battle' by how they so expertly bombarded shores from a safe distance out.

 

Plus, nowhere does it claim that only navies who engaged surface fleets in fleet action are eligible for being in this game.

Brazilian fleet when?

[El_Judarino]

"Well respected for centuries."

 

While I agree that the whole "Blahblah didn't fight doesn't deserve to be in game" is idiocy, the above made me lol hard. xD

 

It's more true than not though. Russia has been a pretty big deal in the naval sense since Peter the Great. Granted, from that time until Napoleon, geography made the Russian navy largely a concern only for Sweden and the Ottoman Empire, but both of them were quite serious players at the time as well. Those two bottlenecks just did a lot to keep the early Russian navy out of view of the English world (France still being the big concern at the time). By Napoleon, and certainly after Trafalgar, the Russians would have had the second largest navy Afloat.

 

There's also the cool (and oft overlooked) part in history where the Russian Atlantic and Pacific Fleets overwintered in New York and San Francisco in 1863 as a friendly reminder to the UK that they aught let the Union and Confederacy settle the Civil War between themselves.

 

Following this, the Russians spend the next 4 or so decades as the world's third largest naval power, such that the UK decided to ally with Japan and jumpstart their naval ambitions to serve as a counterweight to a Russian Pacific presence that was too large for them to solve by themselves. In short, everything we know and love about the Japanese Navy as depicted in the era of this game would be cut off at the roots  if not for British concerns over the Russian navy. 

 

Now, I think the biggest reason for the hate directed at the Russian Navy (the recent tradition of Russophobia simply providing the avenue for the expression of said hate) is based on the coincidence of WG's failure to produce much of anything from the *highly* demanded Royal Navy for so long, and then when they finally did manage the RN CL line, they delivered a line that largely pales in comparison to the Russian Cruiser line (both tier 10's are silly OP in rather different ways) and is certainly much less user friendly. I've noted in several discussions the feeling that the RU CLs took the niche of the RN CLs and thus forced the highly gimmick dependent (though very powerful past tier 6) line we have now. This is compounded my the notable lack of "poor" performing ships almost anywhere in either of the RU DD or RU CL/CA lines, making ready fuel for a nationalism based fire.

 

[atPrick__]

If the Soviets had invested the recourses to build a Surface Fleet comparable to the other allied/axis powers they very well could have lost to the Nazis. So... I'm glad they built Tanks, Guns, and Butter instead.

 

It's a Russian Developed game for players that take issue, get over it.

[TheKrimzonDemon]

 

It's more true than not though. Russia has been a pretty big deal in the naval sense since Peter the Great. Granted, from that time until Napoleon, geography made the Russian navy largely a concern only for Sweden and the Ottoman Empire, but both of them were quite serious players at the time as well. Those two bottlenecks just did a lot to keep the early Russian navy out of view of the English world (France still being the big concern at the time). By Napoleon, and certainly after Trafalgar, the Russians would have had the second largest navy Afloat.

 

There's also the cool (and oft overlooked) part in history where the Russian Atlantic and Pacific Fleets overwintered in New York and San Francisco in 1863 as a friendly reminder to the UK that they aught let the Union and Confederacy settle the Civil War between themselves.

 

Following this, the Russians spend the next 4 or so decades as the world's third largest naval power, such that the UK decided to ally with Japan and jumpstart their naval ambitions to serve as a counterweight to a Russian Pacific presence that was too large for them to solve by themselves. In short, everything we know and love about the Japanese Navy as depicted in the era of this game would be cut off at the roots  if not for British concerns over the Russian navy. 

 

Now, I think the biggest reason for the hate directed at the Russian Navy (the recent tradition of Russophobia simply providing the avenue for the expression of said hate) is based on the coincidence of WG's failure to produce much of anything from the *highly* demanded Royal Navy for so long, and then when they finally did manage the RN CL line, they delivered a line that largely pales in comparison to the Russian Cruiser line (both tier 10's are silly OP in rather different ways) and is certainly much less user friendly. I've noted in several discussions the feeling that the RU CLs took the niche of the RN CLs and thus forced the highly gimmick dependent (though very powerful past tier 6) line we have now. This is compounded my the notable lack of "poor" performing ships almost anywhere in either of the RU DD or RU CL/CA lines, making ready fuel for a nationalism based fire.

 

 

Having a big fleet doesn't really mean anything if you can't do anything with it. Any time the Russians tried to actually fight, they got their butts handed to them. So, no respect.

[Argh_My_Liver]

 

I've got no massive personal issue with the russians being included in the game early and having a larger than average number of paper only designs in their lines. Its a russian game and there weren't enough ships of different classes built to fill out entire lines so they should be realistically expected by anyone. 

 

However I'm still going to roll my eyes and make jokes whenever a russian ship is out performing its peers statswise by a country mile and the response is "the ship can be sunk and is therefore balanced" or when I read the blurb on an unconstructed russian ship that hypes it up as the greatest ship of its class ever constructed. Announcements of new incoming russian lines and premiums will get the same reaction while dozens of ships with far more interesting designs and histories imo are left on the backburner so we can get another old russian armoured cruiser or a line of ship designs named projects 7578-756689

 

Not really adding much to discussion probably, just my opinion

 

 

 

 

 

[Doomlock]

Russia's Navy caught a lot of flak after the Second Ruso-Japanese War after the utter destruction of their Pacific fleet and the Second Pacific Squadron's 13'000 mile journey to get obliterated in the Battle of Tsushima. The reputation it had prior was tarnished and disgraced, and thus the Russian Navy was seen as a joke.

 

WWI Russian Navy I'm not to up on besides Aurora's contribution to the October revolution. As to WWII: Russia had a lot on their plate. The disaster of the Winter War with Finland, the invasion of the Motherland by Germany, and guarding conveys that made it to Murmansk and Leningrad. All resources were diverted to the front lines of the land war and little thought was given to the sea war due to the US and UK already spearheading it.

 

As to the unreal ships in the Russian tech tree: in the cruiser line we have Orlan, Budyonny, Shchors, Dmitri Donskoi, and Moskva. In the destroyer line we have Udaloi and Khabarovsk, Kiev was partially constructed. In the new tech trees we see the unreal ships Podvoisky, Grozovoi and maybe the premium T5 one? I'm not to sure on her.

 

To say out of the 22 ships in the RU tech tree, all paper ships is false only 9 of them are project designs and one was partially completed.

[Shield380]

This is very well written, I applaud you for your vocalism

[AVR_Project]

It is my understanding that when Russians play this Russian game.....

They prefer sailing US ships...

Must be some sort of bias there...  lol

[Drakausa]

The point is their navy did not engage in any combat with like surface units of any other navies. Taking pot shots at Italian torpedo boats or Finnish coastal defense ships doesn't really count. To have such massive in game representation for a pathetic surface fleet is a sad attempt to rewrite the record. Every Russian cruiser after Molotov never floated in the war. Those that were extant in the war did almost nothing. We have those in game but no Brooklyn class, no Northampton class, no British anything except light cruisers...It's so skewed as to be laughable.

 

This sort of statement puzzles me greatly. WOWS is not now nor has ever been a recreation of WW1 or WW2 ocean combat. WOWS, as repeatedly stated, is a use of historical ships, reproduced in a digital format then designed within general parameters (tiers) to play in a GAME! Equal numbers of ships per 'side' is NOT historical. Empire, Allied, Axis ships etc...did NOT join up and fight equal numbers of mixed ships in ANY history anywhere. Anyone who claims this is a game of historical recreation is simply wrong on the face of it. WG has used historical information for the look of ships (they have NO digital recreation inside) and as much of their historical performance as will fit into the game parameters. Please stop trying to imply this is not a game FIRST. To make money.

 

For myself I enjoy the historical nature of the ships and enjoy playing the game. I realize the failure to include historical simulation (reality) but that would simply make the game unplayable. Heck, my first problem with the game was realizing that as a US citizen my digital cruiser would be firing on other US ships. As an old (60s) US Navy veteran I found this uncomfortable. However it is a game, not reality and not a history book. I now have 38 ships, play mostly at T3-T6 and enjoy myself. I am a retired game designer and would have loved to have been a part of the design but the fact is that the game is fun, like riding a roller coaster. Whether you yell in pleasure or puke in despair, you usually come back for more. That is a winning strategy for any game company.

[VTAdmiral]

The only problem I have with the Russian ships is how nearly every single one is the #1 best performer in its tier.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

Personally I dont think that the capability of a fleet or the fact that a ship never floated should be factor in choosing ships to put in. Some of the ships I look forward to the most never got beyond design stages, it is really cool that this game lets ships with unique and interesting designs that never left the drawing boards fight against ships that might have been theirs peers in real life. However that said a lot of the ships I want to see really did exist and are not in the game and its a shame the RN was featured so little in this game. On top of that I also realize that most people dont necessarily want interesting new designs to play they simply want more all the identical copies of ships that were in their favorite anime or all the ships that they read about in history books, or the ships they visited in real life. Personally its a real shame to me because adding clones does not make the game more interesting to play or add new challenges. 

[Cruxdei]

 

 So, no respect.

 

italian navy was trashed five times a day until next week in ww2 but they get respect.

german navy was built to engage merchant ships(see the infamous U-boats,they did engage battleships because the enemy lacked countermeasures until later)  they were not BIG and hardly a traditional fleet,but they get respect.

 

imperial russian navy in the russo-japanese war were too confident and outdated.

the soviets  invested more in land war since their main enemy(nazi germany) didn't focus on building a ocean conquering fleet.

soviets in cold war changed their naval doctrine completely,their fleet  would act as a parry sword against the USA task force in a hypothetical war in europe.

(submarines are still menace to any ship everywhere)

 

having no respect for a navy where people died,lost family members and spilled sweat and blood just because they were not badass like the royal navy shows a lot about your personality.

 

i'm not a russian fanboy,i'm studying history to become a good teacher so i must be impartial.

 

edit:the operation crossroads basically "destroyed" the  idea of big fleets  completely.

 

[VTAdmiral]

Personally I dont think that the capability of a fleet or the fact that a ship never floated should be factor in choosing ships to put in. Some of the ships I look forward to the most never got beyond design stages, it is really cool that this game lets ships with unique and interesting designs that never left the drawing boards fight against ships that might have been theirs peers in real life. However that said a lot of the ships I want to see really did exist and are not in the game and its a shame the RN was featured so little in this game. On top of that I also realize that most people dont necessarily want interesting new designs to play they simply want more all the identical copies of ships that were in their favorite anime or all the ships that they read about in history books, or the ships they visited in real life. Personally its a real shame to me because adding clones does not make the game more interesting to play or add new challenges. 

 

At the same time, taking a historical vessel and twisting it into something it never was for the sake of "unique gameplay" is going to upset a lot of people who wanted the historical vessel. Mutsu is an example, with multiple "features" that never existed on the ship at the same time.

 

I understand the desire for more unique and interesting ships. Ichizuchi is an example of this, designs that never saw the light of day and we get to see what it can do now. Same with Montana or Hindenburg. We get to see what Yamato can do to other battleships (rather than get swarmed by 400 airplanes). We get to see Iowa do something other than spend an afternoon shooting a cruiser with no engine.

 

If you wanted a unique Japanese battleship in tier 6 than you should've campaigned for the Ise class. It gives you what you want without butchering something that many other people love.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

 

At the same time, taking a historical vessel and twisting it into something it never was for the sake of "unique gameplay" is going to upset a lot of people who wanted the historical vessel. Mutsu is an example, with multiple "features" that never existed on the ship at the same time.

 

I understand the desire for more unique and interesting ships. Ichizuchi is an example of this, designs that never saw the light of day and we get to see what it can do now. Same with Montana or Hindenburg. We get to see what Yamato can do to other battleships (rather than get swarmed by 400 airplanes). We get to see Iowa do something other than spend an afternoon shooting a cruiser with no engine.

 

If you wanted a unique Japanese battleship in tier 6 than you should've campaigned for the Ise class. It gives you what you want without butchering something that many other people love.

The Ise class is a fuso class with a slightly better gun layout. its also needed for the second IJN bb line which is also why I disagree with the Alabama because I wanted it saved for the second USN BB line. There are plenty of proposals people don't know about that could fit. They just are not know or have anime versions. 

[Flashtirade]

The only problem I have with the Russian ships is how nearly every single one is the #1 best performer in its tier.

 

This. I don't mind that the Russians get a fleet of ships that never saw the light of day or never performed any significant naval actions, I do mind however that they always seem to be just as capable or more so than their peers that actually did exist and/or actually performed. Like the Khab, a design that runs at the 45 knots that a test Kiev did briefly before destroying its engine while also carrying significantly more firepower and armor happens to fit almost perfectly in the non-stealthfiring gunboat meta they're trying to push onto DDs.

[VTAdmiral]

The Ise class is a fuso class with a slightly better gun layout. its also needed for the second IJN bb line which is also why I disagree with the Alabama because I wanted it saved for the second USN BB line. There are plenty of proposals people don't know about that could fit. They just are not know or have anime versions. 

 

The Ise class is a Fuso class with 4 guns and a flight deck equipped with seaplane dive bombers, the E16A Zuiun if memory serves.

 

if you want unique gameplay, you don't get more unique that a Battlecarrier hybrid design. Premium Hyuuga battlecarrier. Line ship Ise without the flight deck.

 

The Fusos were also planned for this modification but never received it. Surigao Strait kinda put a damper on it.

[Lert]

The Ise class is a Fuso class with 4 guns and a flight deck equipped with seaplane dive bombers

 

Not at first. At first they were a sister class to the Fusos, just different enough to warrange a different class designation, according to the Japanese.

 

Fuso 1944:

 

 

Ise 1939, pre-remodel:

 

 

 

Ise 1944, post-remodel:

 

 

[BURN_Miner]

The point is their navy did not engage in any combat with like surface units of any other navies. Taking pot shots at Italian torpedo boats or Finnish coastal defense ships doesn't really count. To have such massive in game representation for a pathetic surface fleet is a sad attempt to rewrite the record. Every Russian cruiser after Molotov never floated in the war. Those that were extant in the war did almost nothing. We have those in game but no Brooklyn class, no Northampton class, no British anything except light cruisers...It's so skewed as to be laughable.

 

So this is what you personally would classify as "not counting" as a war effort? I would encourage you to go to a VFW an tell anyone of the vets there that an effort where they may or "may not have" lost theirs lives "didn't count" and shouldn't be considered part of an overall effort towards a war victory. No really, you are reaching for anything to exclude the Russian line and it's blatantly clear with each posts as you have even ignored my post from the previous thread...

 

Which ones might you ask? The ones where I lay out that there are numerous paper ships in game yet you make no mention of them. I listed the Montana and Amagi for starters and another poster listed a slew of others, but again you completely overlooked and ignored those because it didn't fit your anti-Russian navy agenda.

 

 

@the OP,

 

Thank you for posting this. I know I appreciate it as do some others, though beware you probably rattled some cages here. I'm sure you know by now that history is written and rewritten, let alone interpreted as people see fit based on bias, beliefs, religion, etc. With that comes tunnel vision and sometimes, no matter how middle of the road you are and present facts from both sides saying "hey, look everything is right here" posters like the one I quoted will still cover their ears, closer their eyes and shake their heads saying "nu uh *reasons*".

 

Sadly this phenomena is only getting worse the further we go along due to media, both social and "the news" (sickens me to call it that anymore), but it is increasingly becoming hard to find actual facts. So I wonder what our history will tell or look like. We may smile at that thought now, but stop and think about it for a minute. All the false truths, all the opinions of "I'm right - to the most extreme aspect with no middle ground" after all with the middle ground virtually gone, there is no debating, no conversations only statements, one way conversations. As is the case with the person I quoted, he hears what he wants to hear, which is dismissing everyone who disagrees with him and the facts presented to him from numerous sources, anyone that agrees with him, he will engage, pat on the back and buy a pony for saying "Welcome aboard, we have cookies"... It wasn't always like this.

 

Sorry to digress, just got lost in thought there for a minute. Bias is bias and people are people, those are facts that won't change. However, if people are going to try to regurgitate history at the very least try to research some information from a few sources rather than opinion (not you Xero_Snake). Doing so will give you more than one vantage on the event, which believe it or not, is a good thing. Don't take my word for it people, try watching "Untold History of The United States" by Oliver Stone. If I recall, it's still on Netflix, it may just open a few peoples eyes with regards to our school history books not teaching us "everything" and "truthfully"....

[VTAdmiral]

 

Not at first. At first they were a sister class to the Fusos, just different enough to warrange a different class designation, according to the Japanese.

 

Fuso 1944:

 

 

Ise 1939, pre-remodel:

 

 

 

Ise 1944, post-remodel:

 

 

 

I'm aware.

 

My point is you can do the "upgraded Fuso" as a line ship and a "Battlecarrier" remodel as a premium.

[BURN_Miner]

The only problem I have with the Russian ships is how nearly every single one is the #1 best performer in its tier.

 

Um, I'll call false on this, with proof.... Now I'm typically not one to throw stats out as an individuals performance has a huge impact on a ships performance in game, so your statement is indeed loaded. However, if your claim is going off of Warships.today (which is what I am assuming it is), well I call false.... Yes, screenshots are here as well, though I did NOT manipulate the stats on any of these to fit my stance. All I did was click the Tier and hit the Capture button. So, if you had to tweak the individual stats to get the Russian line to be at the top, that may be something to look at with regards to how well your argument stands.

 

Tier 1: Top here Orlan

 

 

Tier 2: Nope

 

 

Tier 3: Nope

 

 

Tier 4: Top here - Shocker, it's the Nikolai

 

 

Tier 5: Nope

 

 

Tier 6: Nope

 

 

Tier 7: Nope

 

 

Tier 8: Nope

 

 

Tier 9: Nope

 

 

Tier 10: Top here Khabarovsk

 

 

But again man, if you want to adjust it to Tier 8 "Damage" we can see that it's

 

 

 

I guess that didn't work either... Though at Tier 5 the Murmansk tops the damage over the Marblehead by 1,500, yet falls behind the Marblehead in win ratio by 1.45%. You won't be happy with the Tier 6 damage I assure you.... The Graf takes the cake, the next 2 are Russian (Molotov/Buddy) then Leander. However, all of the mentioned T6 have less than a plane kill per match and the Russian CA's are on the bottom half of the scale with regards to survival (Buddy at 27% and Molt at 26%).

 

So when you say "nearly every single one is the #1 best performer in its tier" it is a false and moreover loaded statement based purely on a players performance and the quote itself is shadowed by bias. Any ship can perform well given a player dedicates their time to learn how to counter another ship (yes, any other ship it will face within it's MM). That is one of the driving factors on why I played the heck out of the New Mexico way back in OBT and around launch. Apparently people thought it sucked, I went out to prove them wrong.

 

When I had my first 100k game, it was called "luck". My first 150k game, "luck". After a dozen or so 175k games, people stopped with the "luck" aspect and started quieting down for the most part. At 200k, well, some still say the ship sucks and that USN BB's suck....

 

Some things and some people will see what they want to see. Try learning something new and drop old habits and old ways of thinking, you just may surprise yourself.