Allied Weekend

[SeaKnight_1990]

At the end of this month, the Murmansk and Perth will be in the premium shop. Which one should I buy and why?

[RHINO_Mk_II]

At the end of this month, the Murmansk and Perth will be in the premium shop.

 

Source?

[SeaKnight_1990]

 

Source?

 

You're welcome.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/no-april-fools-joke-here/#buddycops

[Umikami]

That's an interesting question; what are the pro's and con's of each?

Perth gets better concealment, by about 3 K.

Murmansk, however, has better maneuverability, with better top speed, a better turning radius, and rudder shift.

Murmansk also has better AA, though much of it is short range.

Perth takes the lead in the torp dept, firing 8 to the Russians 6, both for 8K but the RN dealing 15K+ damage to the Russians 14,400.

Perth also comes out ahead, though just barely, in hit points; 27100 to 26,800 for Murmansk.

Perth also sports a secondary battery of 8 102 mm guns. Murmansk has no secondary batteries.

Perth fires 8 152 mm (6") guns, 8 times per minute. AP damage is 3100, HE is 2100.

Murmansk fires 10 152 mm (6") guns 8.57 times per minute. AP damage is 3100, HE is 2200.

 

So ... if you want to stay at range and max out your firepower, I'd say Murmansk.

If you want to do anything else ... PERTH!!

 

(hope this helps, let me know how it comes out)

[RHINO_Mk_II]

 

You're welcome.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/no-april-fools-joke-here/#buddycops

 

TY. Misread the first time and thought you meant doubloon shop.

[Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper]

That's an interesting question; what are the pro's and con's of each?

Perth gets better concealment, by about 3 K.

Murmansk, however, has better maneuverability, with better top speed, a better turning radius, and rudder shift.

Murmansk also has better AA, though much of it is short range.

Perth takes the lead in the torp dept, firing 8 to the Russians 6, both for 8K but the RN dealing 15K+ damage to the Russians 14,400.

Perth also comes out ahead, though just barely, in hit points; 27100 to 26,800 for Murmansk.

Perth also sports a secondary battery of 8 102 mm guns. Murmansk has no secondary batteries.

Perth fires 8 152 mm (6") guns, 8 times per minute. AP damage is 3100, HE is 2100.

Murmansk fires 10 152 mm (6") guns 8.57 times per minute. AP damage is 3100, HE is 2200.

 

 

So ... if you want to stay at range and max out your firepower, I'd say Murmansk.

If you want to do anything else ... PERTH!!

 

(hope this helps, let me know how it comes out)

 

And Perth has "that smoke" too.

[_Rumple_]

T5 constantly gets uptiered to T7. If it was a T5 DD like fujin and clones, I would say go for it. However a constantly uptiered T5 cruiser is not my idea of fun. To each their own of course, but do keep the way MM is currently as part of your decision to buy or not.

[crzyhawk]

Perth is powerful but difficult to play.  Murmansk is a pretty comfortable fit for most players.  I'd probably recommend the Murmansk.

[Kizarvexis]

At the end of this month, the Murmansk and Perth will be in the premium shop. Which one should I buy and why?

 

If you already have a captain trainer for the RU line, then you have to choose. Otherwise get your first RU trainer.

 

Murmansk is very similar to the Omaha being a sister ship. If you like the Omaha or Marblehead, get the Murmansk. 

 

I have the Perth, but haven't played it much, since there is no line to go with it. I've seen people say it is like the Leander, so if you like Brit CLs, get the Perth.

 

Before choosing either, check LWM premium ship reviews and look at other reviews as well.

[SeaKnight_1990]

I've thought about a bit, and am leaning towards the ship that represents the best about Australia--the Sydney Opera House, the Outback desert, kangaroos, AC/DC, bushrangers, Aussie Rules Football, sheep, Pensfold Grange wine, bush tucker, and so much more, namely, the HMAS Perth. I'm up to T4 on the RN CL line, and don't want her gathering too much dust, but then again, I might not play the game that much, due to school, work, and all that.

 

 

[Sotaudi]

That's an interesting question; what are the pro's and con's of each?

Perth gets better concealment, by about 3 K.

Murmansk, however, has better maneuverability, with better top speed, a better turning radius, and rudder shift.

Murmansk also has better AA, though much of it is short range.

Perth takes the lead in the torp dept, firing 8 to the Russians 6, both for 8K but the RN dealing 15K+ damage to the Russians 14,400.

Perth also comes out ahead, though just barely, in hit points; 27100 to 26,800 for Murmansk.

Perth also sports a secondary battery of 8 102 mm guns. Murmansk has no secondary batteries.

Perth fires 8 152 mm (6") guns, 8 times per minute. AP damage is 3100, HE is 2100.

Murmansk fires 10 152 mm (6") guns 8.57 times per minute. AP damage is 3100, HE is 2200.

 

 

So ... if you want to stay at range and max out your firepower, I'd say Murmansk.

If you want to do anything else ... PERTH!!

 

(hope this helps, let me know how it comes out)

 

When discussing guns, it is best not just to count the guns, but also consider the placement and traverse.  Otherwise, it makes the comparison misleading.

 

The Murmansk is an Omaha C hull.  That means it has dual mount turrets fore and aft supplemented by casemate guns at each corner of the fore and aft superstructure.  The casemate guns have a limited traverse.  Thus, while the Murmansk has 10 guns, there is no circumstance it can ever get all ten guns on a target.  Additionally, while the Omaha B hull (including the Marblehead) has four casemate guns fore and aft, the C hull (including the Murmansk) has fore casemate guns forward, but only two aft.

 

By contrast, the Perth has two dual gun turrets fore and aft.

 

 That means that the Perth can get four guns directly forward or directly aft and eight guns for a broadside.  The Murmansk can fire six guns directly forward, four guns directly aft, and a maximum of seven for a broadside.  However, because the casemate guns have a limited traverse to the opposite side, if the target is more than slightly port or slightly starboard, the Murmansk may only be able to get four guns forward or three guns aft, and sometimes only two forward or one aft if the turret is not traversed enough.  This can be compensated for by sailing zig-zag course to fire four (or three aft) then swing the other way to get the remaining forward or aft guns into play then rinsing and repeating (i.e., the "Omaha Wiggle").  However, forced maneuvering may not allow this to be done consistently every reload cycle, where as the Perth can be more consistent.

 

Thus, if we are talking purely about gun counts, I would give the overall advantage to the Perth because of the ability to consistently keep at least four guns on a target, but note that there are circumstances where the Murmansk is able to keep six guns on a target to the Perth's four.