Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Blink309

This will be in game right!?

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

589
[-Z-]
Alpha Tester
773 posts
1,204 battles

Of course it wont be.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
14 posts
138 battles

Meanwhile all the CV and  DD players are thinking "bigtargetbigtargetbigtargetcan'tdodgecan'tdodgecan'tdodge"

 

Yeah, good luck turning that thing with those tiny rudders. And I hope you have more propellers than it looks like it has, because to me all I see is "bomb/torpedo magnet."

Edited by LittleWecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,492
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,300 posts
15,806 battles

A more realistic and more likely Super Yamato would be the "normal" Yamato with four 18" triple turrets like the planned Montana clast that was going to have 4 16" triples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
81 posts

Not it was planned and named : Design A 150 featuring 510-mm guns in three twin turrets and secondary battery of at least 10 dual purpose twin turret 100-mm/65-caliber.  Japan started to built one of those giant 510 at the Kure Navy yard in 1941 and the shell would have weighted upt o 1905 kilograms.  It would have been very similar to the Yamato in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
598 posts
533 battles

Sure that could be in the game. It could be on one team and everyone else on the other team  :Smile_teethhappy:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,238
Alpha Tester
4,440 posts

View Postsgtpepper500, on 08 December 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Sure that could be in the game. It could be on one team and everyone else on the other team  :Smile_teethhappy:.

LOL

Developers said "no super Yamato", unless your forum name rhymes with it ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
589
[-Z-]
Alpha Tester
773 posts
1,204 battles

View PostHaradaTaro, on 08 December 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

So NO Montana :)

Montana is a tier X,  along with Iowa, Yamato and Battleship Number 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
81 posts

I know I know but that's sad.  I wonder what their number 13 will be....if it is not the A150.... there was no real project beyong the A150 or the B65 battlecruiser...

Edited by HaradaTaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
468 posts

If it were, Hell would be payed, that thing would need serious nerfing if they WERE to be able to put that in, cause good god the Super Yamato was possibly one of the best Warship never put down for construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
81 posts

False : Super Yamato was plagued by the same mistake Yamato was.  A defective weak joint between the armor belt and its fundations.  To much unarmored volume allowing loss of buoyancy. More over Japan was technically unable to produce the deired thickness for its armor belt so it would have a weaked two layers belt....  It doesn't need nerfing as it has its own weaknesses.

Edited by HaradaTaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
589
[-Z-]
Alpha Tester
773 posts
1,204 battles

View PostHaradaTaro, on 08 December 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

I know I know but that's sad.  I wonder what their number 13 will be....if it is not the A150.... there was no real project beyong the A150 or the B65 battlecruiser...

Battleship No 13 is an interwar project that was cancled due to the Naval treaties.

http://en.wikipedia....lass_battleship


There's even a wiki on it, that's new.  Regardless,  it's much faster than yamato, but doesn't have as many guns, nor are they as powerful.  It will be receiving additional AA weapons,  but it will still be inferior to Yamato's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
533 posts

View PostHaradaTaro, on 08 December 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

I know I know but that's sad.  I wonder what their number 13 will be....if it is not the A150.... there was no real project beyong the A150 or the B65 battlecruiser...

No-13 is an 8-8(-8) era ship, and is getting the tier 10 fast battleship/battle cruiser spot. There are several types, but most bets are probably on the one with 8 18.1-in guns.

(Edit) Slow I am. :sad:
Edited by Gigaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
81 posts

Thanks... and laughs.... I wxas looking forward and not backwards but I got it. it was for battleship from 13 to 16... 47500 tons and 8 18.1" gun in twin turrets  as well as 16 casemate 140mm....  30knts and nearly no armor....  not interesting when the opposite have the montana, the best armored possible one... Moreover a beam of only 31m would not have allowed a wide torpedo defense....

Edited by HaradaTaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[AWOOF]
Beta Testers
284 posts
247 battles

無敵日本 Class

Invincible Japan Class

 

Let's look at somethings in comparison to WoT. WoT has a lot of real world super tanks in the tier 7 and 8 bracket of game play, such as the Tiger and Tiger II. And then you have the best tank America ran in WW2 like the Pershing at tier 8 as well. So wouldn't it be safe to say ships like the Yamato may only be tier 8-9?

 

Unless KGB has confirmed the Yamato as a tier 10 in the Dev Q&A and I missed it.

Edited by ScarlettRain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
197 posts
2 battles

View PostScarlettRain, on 09 December 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

無敵日本 Class
Invincible Japan Class

Let's look at somethings in comparison to WoT. WoT has a lot of real world super tanks in the tier 7 and 8 bracket of game play, such as the Tiger and Tiger II. And then you have the best tank America ran in WW2 like the Pershing at tier 8 as well. So wouldn't it be safe to say ships like the Yamato may only be tier 8-9?

Unless KGB has confirmed the Yamato as a tier 10 in the Dev Q&A and I missed it.
Consider it confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×