Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
tm63au

WG Its Time For Sydney: Aquila And Bearn

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,407
[POP]
Members
2,846 posts
22,776 battles

Despite what the spreadsheets say and the Russian fanboys there are just as many players that could not care less about and do not want STRONK OP paper and unfinished hulled Russian Cruisers.

A google search of all 3 ships has come up a  X German unfinished warship ( which is not the tallin in the picture ) another a missile cruiser from the 70's and last is a ship built in Siberia that was towed around all over the place and never got operational till the late 50's 

And the two that replacements for the soon to be Premiums I didn't even bother looking up. 

And before all the fan boys come out of the wood works with graphs and diagrams let me say this I DO NOT CARE.

Yes the CV reworks is not finished and yes the Anti CV crowd protest again read  last part of above line.

HMAS Sydney, RM Aquila and MN Bearn  actually have more history and service time than any these so called Russian ships ever had.

  

Image result for hmas sydney aircraft carrier sketxh

 

  Image result for aquila carrier

Image result for bearn carrier

 

The Commonwealth line could use another ship Sydney would be perfect

 After the "cough cough fantastic performance The Italian Cruisers  are having in game cough cough "  Aquila might just be what that nation needs.

Again the Bearn would be a much welcome addition that Nations lines

For anyone that missed my thoughts about these new Russian ships, there history ( what history ) service, design and there implementation in game " I DON'T CARE "

let the salt flow

Das Vedanya Comrades

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,492
[TARK]
Members
6,549 posts
2,512 battles
21 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Despite what the spreadsheets say and the Russian fanboys there are just as many players that could not care less about and do not want STRONK OP paper and unfinished hulled Russian Cruisers.

A google search of all 3 ships has come up a  X German unfinished warship ( which is not the tallin in the picture ) another a missile cruiser from the 70's and last is a ship built in Siberia that was towed around all over the place and never got operational till the late 50's 

And the two that replacements for the soon to be Premiums I didn't even bother looking up. 

And before all the fan boys come out of the wood works with graphs and diagrams let me say this I DO NOT CARE.

Yes the CV reworks is not finished and yes the Anti CV crowd protest again read  last part of above line.

HMAS Sydney, RM Aquila and MN Bearn  actually have more history and service time than any these so called Russian ships ever had.

  

Image result for hmas sydney aircraft carrier sketxh

 

  Image result for aquila carrier

Image result for bearn carrier

 

The Commonwealth line could use another ship Sydney would be perfect

 After the "cough cough fantastic performance The Italian Cruisers  are having in game cough cough "  Aquila might just be what that nation needs.

Again the Bearn would be a much welcome addition that Nations lines

For anyone that missed my thoughts about these new Russian ships, there history ( what history ) service, design and there implementation in game " I DON'T CARE "

let the salt flow

Das Vedanya Comrades

 

 

Which planes would the Sydney and Bearn be equipped with?

Im familiar with Aquila and hope she is the next premium carrier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,001
[RLGN]
Members
14,297 posts
25,169 battles

Aquila at least doesn’t have Bearn’s bad rep.

In any case; why not?

WG doesn’t seem to care about where carriers are atm; they might as well throw more kerosene in the dumpster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,181
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,913 posts
11,590 battles
1 minute ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Aquila at least doesn’t have Bearn’s bad rep.

In any case; why not?

WG doesn’t seem to care about where carriers are atm; they might as well throw more kerosene in the dumpster.

what was that "bad rep" you speak of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,001
[RLGN]
Members
14,297 posts
25,169 battles
8 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

what was that "bad rep" you speak of?

Very sub-par speed for a carrier, small capacity, ugly as hell, never really accomplished much.

Aquila at least had competitive speed for a carrier, more capacity, at least by a bit, and was better looking, even if it also didn’t do much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,181
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,913 posts
11,590 battles
57 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Very sub-par speed for a carrier, small capacity, ugly as hell, never really accomplished much.

Aquila at least had competitive speed for a carrier, more capacity, at least by a bit, and was better looking, even if it also didn’t do much.

 

to me, the side profile of the Bearn reminds me of a Bogue class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,287 posts
6,522 battles
1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

what was that "bad rep" you speak of?

Being lousy. Bearn basically demonstrates why converting a slow battleship to a CV is a nonstarter(so does Eagle for that matter). The ship is slow, so its ability to launch planes is reduced and its operational utility is limited. It's short, so the hanger is small and the airgroup capacity is low for the tonnage. Add to that France never really focused on giving it a good airgroup(which probably would have been pointless given the previous), so by WWII its airgroup was just a worse equivalent to the Val(single 225 kg bomb). And that was the new airgroup, the old one was early 30's biplanes.

1 minute ago, tcbaker777 said:

to me, the side profile of the Bearn reminds me of a Bogue class

The capability is pretty similar to a Bogue too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
770
[REVY]
Members
2,282 posts
12,250 battles
1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

what was that "bad rep" you speak of?

 

1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Very sub-par speed for a carrier, small capacity, ugly as hell, never really accomplished much.

Aquila at least had competitive speed for a carrier, more capacity, at least by a bit, and was better looking, even if it also didn’t do much.

 

 

41 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

to me, the side profile of the Bearn reminds me of a Bogue class

 

32 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Being lousy. Bearn basically demonstrates why converting a slow battleship to a CV is a nonstarter(so does Eagle for that matter). The ship is slow, so its ability to launch planes is reduced and its operational utility is limited. It's short, so the hanger is small and the airgroup capacity is low for the tonnage. Add to that France never really focused on giving it a good airgroup(which probably would have been pointless given the previous), so by WWII its airgroup was just a worse equivalent to the Val(single 225 kg bomb). And that was the new airgroup, the old one was early 30's biplanes.

The capability is pretty similar to a Bogue too.

 

She was a converted Normandie-class BB and was basically the French's version of the HMS Argus and USS Langley: an experimental CV. Her replacements were never built, so she became the French Navy's only CV at the start of WW2.

She never really did anything significant and spent much of the war tied up in the Caribbean. When she did join the Free French Navy, she was refit in the US as an Aircraft Transport and remained in this role for the rest of her career.

She never launched any aircraft into combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×