Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
HazeGrayUnderway

Ever wonder why it's so easy to hit an Atlanta?

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

Giulio Cesare is tiny, this is well known. She's smaller than Duca d'Aosta for Pete's sake.

 

Dang it, now I want tiny battleship. Give España WG! :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HINON]
Members
2,199 posts
6,177 battles

11572402.jpg

My face when my Baltimore or Fiji or Des Moines (glory to the fail divs) see an Atlanta turning out to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,203 posts
6,433 battles

It's also the perspective trolling you, the ship in front will always seem to be larger than it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
454
[LOU1]
Members
2,852 posts
7,987 battles
9 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

It's also the perspective trolling you, the ship in front will always seem to be larger than it actually is.

5TH8odR.jpg

June 6, 1942: USS Hornet CV-8, USS Atlanta CL-51 and USS New Orleans CA-32 seen following the Battle of 
Midway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,203 posts
6,433 battles
6 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

-snip-

June 6, 1942: USS Hornet CV-8, USS Atlanta CL-51 and USS New Orleans CA-32 seen following the Battle of 
Midway. 

Lengths of various ships:

USS Atlanta - 165m

USS Hornet - 252.5m

USS New Orleans - 179m

Giulio Cesare - 176m

Prinz Eugen - 212.5m

Nagato - 225m

USS Colorado - 190m

Gneisenau - 235m

HMS King George V. - 227m

Myoukou - 204m

Algerié - 186m

USS Pensacola - 178.5m

HMS Fiji - 169m

 

I don't know, Atlanta seems to be small if we compare her to other T7 Cruisers (or Battleships), if we compare them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
454
[LOU1]
Members
2,852 posts
7,987 battles

An interesting note is that 165m is almost two (American) football fields long (180 yds).  Smaller than a BB maybe, but still pretty big...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[DRB]
[DRB]
Beta Testers
819 posts
4,524 battles
2 hours ago, ExploratorOne said:

 

 

LOL. The 250th vessel launched what a flow of resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,133 posts

I thought they were easy to hit because their commanders love to 'hide' behind islands to fling HE never knowing they can be hit back.  All while not moving.

Edited by Wowzery
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,575
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,571 posts
14,005 battles
6 hours ago, Mainerd said:

LOL. The 250th vessel launched what a flow of resources.

 

The US was pumping out more ships than the Axis could sink.  You can also see that in ship class sizes.  In Cruisers, every navy but the USN, you'd have maybe a handful of ships make up a class.  But the United States Navy?  She got 27 completed Cleveland-class CLs (and none lost in combat action).  She also got 127 Fletcher-class Fleet DDs.

The IJN got 19 Yugumo-class DDs

The IJN got 19 Kagero-class DDs

The IJN got 12 Akizuki-class DDs

The USN got 98 Gearing-class DDs

The USN got 30 Benson-class DDs

The USN got 4 Iowa-class BBs built despite the priority shifting to Carriers, because why not?  The US still built:

24 Essex-class CVs

3 Midway-class CVs were completed but Midway's commissioning missed the war by 1 month.

I'm leaving off the CVLs, CVEs because it starts getting silly :Smile_glasses:

Oh, and it still built 4 South Dakota-class BBs

2 North Carolina-class BBs.

For s--ts and giggles.

 

The US was building so many ships that it was handing ships out and finished the war with a navy larger than the world's navies combined.  Then you think about the late war American Carrier Task Forces with the British sending the British Pacific Fleet to work with them, with their own pile of Carriers, Battleships, etc, the s--t was crazy.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,575
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,571 posts
14,005 battles
2 hours ago, Ensign_Pulver_2016 said:

Why is it so easy to hit cit an Atlanta?  

 

Thin armor that's easy to pen with any gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SYN]
Members
504 posts
5,930 battles
18 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

The US was pumping out more ships than the Axis could sink.  You can also see that in ship class sizes.  In Cruisers, every navy but the USN, you'd have maybe a handful of ships make up a class.  But the United States Navy?  She got 27 completed Cleveland-class CLs (and none lost in combat action).  She also got 127 Fletcher-class Fleet DDs.

 

I read that part of that was a means to allow ease of service and training.  The more the ships were the same, and the more the functions of each type were common with one another, the easier to scale repairs, service, supply, and training.

 

When I read that, it made sense, so I never researched it.  I found it interesting nonetheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,575
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,571 posts
14,005 battles
47 minutes ago, Ensign_Pulver_2016 said:

 

I read that part of that was a means to allow ease of service and training.  The more the ships were the same, and the more the functions of each type were common with one another, the easier to scale repairs, service, supply, and training.

 

When I read that, it made sense, so I never researched it.  I found it interesting nonetheless. 

The US Navy still had a slew of classes like other navies.  Cleveland, Baltimore, Pensacola, that's just the tip, baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
595
[TF57]
Members
1,237 posts
3,918 battles

Atlanta always seems so cool/fun in theory. Then I spend a round bullying one, chasing a "anti DD" cruiser round the map with a Leningrad....  and then resolve never to buy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,657 posts
9,969 battles
9 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

In Cruisers, every navy but the USN, you'd have maybe a handful of ships make up a class.  But the United States Navy?  She got 27 completed Cleveland-class CLs (and none lost in combat action).

The RN did some decent production runs too. If you look at the fairly incremental changes then the 'War Emergency Program' destroyers are 112 ships on the same basic hull. Then 86 Hunt Class destroyers. For cruisers the most numerous were 16 Dido Class cruisers and 11 Crown Colony Class cruisers, not 27 strong but not a handful.

 

It often depends how you define a class as well. The Gleaves class were to all intents and purposes Benson's with different internals, that'd make the Benson-Gleaves class 99 ships in total. Less difference between them then between say the Dunkerque and Strasbourg which are considered one class - depending how you look at it.

 

Regarding Atlanta, it doesn't seem uncommon to see cruisers approaching battleships in length. Battleships are relatively dense with wider beam and 12-15in armor belts which add greatly to displacement but not so much size compared to a 4-6in armor belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,575
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,571 posts
14,005 battles
1 hour ago, evilleMonkeigh said:

Atlanta always seems so cool/fun in theory. Then I spend a round bullying one, chasing a "anti DD" cruiser round the map with a Leningrad....  and then resolve never to buy...

 

RU DDs should rip Atlanta apart.  Their guns, unlike Atlanta's guns, are actually decent to use at targets past 10km.  The RU DD is faster, stealthier, is better armed, and more importantly, has no citadel.  The only way Atlanta really shreds DDs is if they get a drop on one and the engagement range starts at 9km or less.

 

Atlanta's overspecialization for a knife fight makes her IMO, one of the worst Anti-DD ships in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,657 posts
9,969 battles
14 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Atlanta's overspecialization for a knife fight makes her IMO, one of the worst Anti-DD ships in the game.

Yep, kiting an Atlanta at about 10km in a Blyska is a dirty thrill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[GREPT]
[GREPT]
Beta Testers
6,739 posts
7,079 battles

In game comparison is invalid due to the fisheye camera that is used. However she is a big lug all the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[DRB]
[DRB]
Beta Testers
819 posts
4,524 battles
4 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

The US was pumping out more ships than the Axis could sink.  You can also see that in ship class sizes.  In Cruisers, every navy but the USN, you'd have maybe a handful of ships make up a class.  But the United States Navy?  She got 27 completed Cleveland-class CLs (and none lost in combat action).  She also got 127 Fletcher-class Fleet DDs.

The IJN got 19 Yugumo-class DDs

The IJN got 19 Kagero-class DDs

The IJN got 12 Akizuki-class DDs

The USN got 98 Gearing-class DDs

The USN got 30 Benson-class DDs

The USN got 4 Iowa-class BBs built despite the priority shifting to Carriers, because why not?  The US still built:

24 Essex-class CVs

3 Midway-class CVs were completed but Midway's commissioning missed the war by 1 month.

I'm leaving off the CVLs, CVEs because it starts getting silly :Smile_glasses:

Oh, and it still built 4 South Dakota-class BBs

2 North Carolina-class BBs.

For s--ts and giggles.

 

The US was building so many ships that it was handing ships out and finished the war with a navy larger than the world's navies combined.  Then you think about the late war American Carrier Task Forces with the British sending the British Pacific Fleet to work with them, with their own pile of Carriers, Battleships, etc, the s--t was crazy.

Yeah I'm a old fart. My Dad was a WWII vet. Lost his brother Kenneth to sub action in June 42. Just amazed that we could manage all that, but now we don't have the resorces to manage the upkeep of our infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×