Amateur Video Rapist Nagamon edition
>Latest Patch Notes:
>5.1 Dev bulletin
>5.1 Public test info
>In-game chat channel
EU Channel: "Official /vg/ channel", password is "vidya"
NA Channel: Search for '/vg/' channel by Antibully ranger
NA: [KUMA]: http://na.wargaming.net/clans/1000021519/
Boy? Girl? Does it even matter? Do you even care when the Shimakaze looks this good?
>tfw when I finally got my Hotel back
At long last, the nightmare is over
It has only begun.
Hotel along with other tier 10s will now take 40 percent of their total HP in flooding damage if the full duration goes through
>German BBs and Russian CAs will come out earlier than any of the Royal Navy
If anything, that picture represents the Hotel better than the anime/game, with her delicious wide, ship-bearing hips.
Torpedo bearing hips you mean.
Gonna slam em hard all day into her hips.
Yamatos are great for damage farming.
>set 8 fires
>set 2 fires
Thank you hotel for burning so much
I remember the same thing happening in WoT with frog tanks being released because British archives wouldn't cooperate.
I'm the anon who made the buyers remorse guide
can I get a picture of the new premiums with the screens open and a few words of how they feel like? I wanna update it, got the myoko and was mildly pleased with myself on it, I'll try to keep playing at least the proverbial daily win
The one that decreases accuracy?
Yes. It's the better camo. It genuinely makes you a pain in the ass to try to hit at range. The other stuff just decreases your detection range by a pathetic amount.
What if it looks like both?
What does reading have to do with it? That post makes coherent sense.
Also why can planes see through mountains? I get spotted by planes through islands and mountains like on Solomon Islands so easily
>What does reading have to do with it? That post makes coherent sense.
Maybe you should check the settings menu friend :^)
>Also why can planes see through mountains?
WG Detection radii™
When are they going to readd KTKM? Fucking hell, I've been waiting forever and even got myself through ranked all for nothing.
>he thinks WG planes aren't UFOs that can instantly change velocity and acceleration to be wherever they want to be at a moment
>What would be the main problem causing people to not play high tiers?
Literally no incentive.
At high tiers, the Midway just shits on everyone, and even if you don't get deleted from the game by a carrier you still lose 200,000 credits a game. The economy and balance of this game is a joke.
I said it during beta, but this game is the next World of Warplanes. Wargaming just can't balance a game's economy, mechanics, or anything worth a shit.
Even if I spam APCR rounds in my IS7, I still make some credits at the end of a match in WoT. And even if I don't, I don't lose a huge amount. In Warships, you lose big. When a Midway shift-deletes you from the game, you lose 400,000 credits, and if win only yields like 60,000 credits.
WoT actually had the same problem with the high tier economy, but Wargaming fixed it by increased t8-10 credit gains by 10%-15%, and then again by another 10%.
There's also, again, how bad balance is. It really is fun to be removed from the game by a Midway. There's literally no counter play for DDs and CAs, and BBs and CVs can only hope they have enough health not to die in the first torp plane run.
WoWs is hemorrhaging players. For the first few months of live release matches were generally full. Now they're consistently below max.
For the first few months after launch, when I played there were 8,000-12,000 players on, now there's like 2,000-3,000 during around noon.
Players are quiting because this game just isn't fun. It's not fun when there's zero counter play against CVs, it's not fun when AA is literally random, or when DDs get 1 shot by everything. This is just a bad game and Wargaming refuses to fix anything, and has for months.
I'm aware the numbers are larger, but it still doesn't compare to WoT's economy. If I spam APCR all day in tanks, I'd still make about 200,000 credits after 50 matches (not a lot, I know). But in ships, after 20 t10 games, I'm out 2,000,000 credits no matter how well I play. It's just not satisfying. It's also not satisfying when every game has teams of 5 ships, and 2 of them are CVs who just farm damage.
Waiting 5 minutes for small matches with terrible MM (4 t10s vs. 0 t10s) and Midways just removing people from the game is a terrible play experience. If Wargaming doesn't fix it soon, then this game will die just like all of their other non WoT ventures.
How is it that Warthunder keeps 30-40K+ player counts despite being extremely buggy, incomplete, run by incompetent, biased devs, and having the worst balancing ever visited upon mankind?
Maybe EU is fairing better, but on NA it's dead as dead can be. On NA, even at "peak" times you won't get full matches. MM consistently tosses together uneven teams (uneven either by numbers or tier), and it just leads to a shitty experience.
>>guns turn slower than even japs
unless you mean the bare stats for 1 ru dd in the line it's not true
then, with expert marksman and gun mod 2, gnevny with her 36 sec base half-turn time gets 21.8 sec half-turn, meantime minekaze with her 30 sec keeps her 30 sec because (unless you are a fool) you don't pick neither expert marksman, not gun mod 2 for her
also they are good against other dd.. i recall one memorable game in gnevny how a farragut decided to be a jerk and to light me for cruisers behind her, i took her engine, then took it again and burned her down like a sitting duck and then fled before the cruisers shooting from afar could even hurt me
are you silly? any new game have an influx of players on the release and then most of them quit
That pretty much sums it up.
CV balance is completely broken, BBs are borderline broken, DDs become functionally useless vs. CVs, CAs are cannon fodder for each other, BBs and CVs.
The economy is set to maximum overjew.
>and having the worst balancing ever visited upon mankind
Do they have an entire class of vehicles designed to be uncounterable save by the entire team bunching together and playing too defensively to win? Does it have an absurd reliance on RNG with shells firing at impossible angles and constant fires making armor irrelevant? Talking about bad balance in a WoWs thread is throwing stones in a glass house.
>Do they have an entire class of vehicles designed to be uncounterable save by the entire team bunching together and playing too defensively to win?
Cold war tanks fighting ww2 tanks. Particularly certain cases in the past when Tiger I and IIs have been expected to beat Is-3s, Is-4, and T-54s all of which gots super-penning heat.
Does it have an absurd reliance on RNG with shells firing at impossible angles and constant fires making armor irrelevant?
Shell performance is extremely inconsistent. Tank crew members will sometimes take AT rounds to the face and live.
>Talking about bad balance in a WoWs thread is throwing stones in a glass house.
I wish WoWs was roping in new players. If you look at the number of new players on Warshipstats (or wherever else monitors people who've had at least 25 battles) it's almost none.
Wargaming doesn't even advertise WoWs, or promote it at events.
If Midway deletes me from the game, I lose -310,000 credits.
If I win, I lose 400,000 credits due to torpedo cost and repairs, netting around 80,000 (usually less). And that's just for a DD. CVs and BBs have 400,000 credit repairs alone.
I'd love to be able to win "big," at least 300,000 credits worth, or more, but I can't. The economy in this game is shit.
>tfw I get 50k-400k (200k on average) credits from each t5 & t6 game
>at t10 this is what waits me
It's worse if you play a CV or a BB.
-400,000 repair base, before Ammunition, consumables, and camo.
If you don't have premium, you can lost -690,000 credits in a match if a Midway deletes you from the game (which they will).
>If you don't have premium, you can lost -690,000 credits in a match if a Midway deletes you from the game (which they will).
Listen here nigger, that's literally fucking impossible. Considering I do nothing but play tier 10.
Stop being a cunt anon. You don't even play tier 10.
>you can lost -690,000 credits in a match
not him but free players can never play T10 consistently like you can with premium purely and only because premium doubles your XP and credit gain. the game truly becomes P2W at those levels only because free players can never afford to run T10's like that over and over again without draining their accounts
>Playing a DD against BBs
>There are no CVs.
Run you cowards!
Hezbollah has the superior music desu.
>one day has dropped my average damage on Konigsberg from 58K to 54K
she did everything she could, but it was no use
Musashi took a while to sink, y'know.
The saddest part about WoWS is that it's got so much potential, so many good art assists.
But Wargaming ignores pretty much every recommendation to improve it. "Midway is annihilating everything, better nerf IJN carriers." "DDs are shit? Better nerf them again." "Economy is shit? Better ignore that for months."
Do not make fun of the other hotel.
It doesn't work that way for CVs.
I've seen a tier 6 CV div'd with a tier 7 BB in a tier 9 match.
The enemy had a tier 6 CV as well.
There might be a hard limit on matching CV tiers.
>It doesn't work that way for CVs
Go ahead then, div your tier 4 with a tier 9/10 BB.
>"I don't play tier 10s or CVs, but I'm going to talk about things I don't know."
Have fun anon, this is what happens when you mess up divisioning.
To be fair, the MM used to treat CVs as the division tier, but I believe that changed with the most recent patch.
And it appears that 0.5.1 will make it even more strict, so if dragging a solo tier 4 CV into a higher match isn't possible now, it probably will be in the future.
It's still a fair match :^)
mfw i found a way to avoid being put up against t10 ships when playing t8
feels good sealclubbing with amagi against fuso/new mexico every single match
What method is this? I'm tired of my Amagi being bullied by Essexes and Midways.
Did you even look at the screenshot?
The Ranger was div'd with a tier 8.
MM treated him as a tier 8 CV.
He proceeded to get buttfucked.
MM had no other tier 10s in queue and gave them harder odds of winning.
This isn't rocket science anon. WG is going to try matching CVs strongly, but when you division with them, all bets are off and the worst can happen.
>The Ranger was div'd with a tier 8.
>MM treated him as a tier 8 CV.
No, that isn't shown. Not yet. MM might not have had any T8/9/10 CVs to work with and the best it could do was a T7 with some extra players. I wouldn't be surprised given the selection of other ships.
I don't even think you're wrong, just that the proof is inadequate.
>Posts literal direct proof from 2 days ago
>No, that isn't shown.
It is literally impossible for a tier 7 CV to see tier 10 CVs unless they division with a tier 8 or higher.
Cmon anon, seriously?
Musashi was caught in a number of successful Anvil torpedo attacks that scored hits on both sides, which means she went down evenly. On a smaller ship this would have been fine and sunk the ship rapidly, but the Yamatos were big enough that while it was still fatal damage, it just took longer to actually sink. Which is why as >>121082069 said, they just hit Yamato from one side to make her capsize and sink quicker.
did they even think so complicated
i bet they just wanted to score any hit on her not really caring where it lands
it's pretty hard to land a bomd/torpedo from a plane into a ship irl, and then, the fate of musashi was probably the least thing the american pilots thought of during the sortie
>look at top average damage for amagi
gnevny has average 56.1% winrate 27,984 damage on na, 57.4% 28,569 on eu, 61.1% 32,924 on ru (ru server stats are ridic for almost any ship, dunno why, i suppose warshipstats track only top ru players or something)
yes that's the one
Her and Izy have taken my daily rating to unicum levels.
If I understand this correctly, Pensacola with upgraded guns uses and the New Orleans uses a half decent AP shell. And this also applies to stock Baltimore? Is it true that when you upgrade Baltimore's guns, you get the same shit and slow shell as Des Moines? Why upgrade then?
Prove without any doubt that this camo actually works.
Type 2 camo imo is a placebo. How is WG even calculating this when an enemy ship can move to make a "miss" a "hit". In a game where your target isn't static -4% accuracy is more worthless than snake oil.
I dunno man.
I'm in the Roon now and sometimes it was good with the Hipper and a lot of times it was very frustrating.
-HUGE target. You're as big as a BB.
-Stock HE damage
Technically you can land 6k damage salvos with your AP on Iowas and Yamatos from max range. Technically you can hit 4x citadels on cruisers from just about as far. You can even citadel Amagis from 15km.
But getting your mopey, elongated ass into position to do these things is real difficult.
This. Since they won't release how they calculate when a shot is determined a hit or miss there's no way to prove that Type 2 camo even works. It would make sense that it didn't since there's no way to prove it did since -4% is almost nothing and no amount of games tested could you get a definitive answer.
This is 5.1?
[Laughing Midway Noises]
I bet you pricks think the accuracy mod is worthless too.
Go ahead, test it in a training room. Shooting at ship with type 2 camo at range makes your dispersion doegshit compared to those without.
>Technically you can land 6k damage salvos with your AP on Iowas and Yamatos from max range.
How about test it in 100 games and see if in a real battle -4% makes any difference whatsoever. Guess what, you can't, because there's too many fucking variables happening all at once when you fire at a target that can not only move in 4 directions but can also change speed.
this of course makes accuracy mod worthless as well. If I remember some anon did like 50 games with an acc mod and actually crunched numbers and found less than .5% difference.
If I remember some anon did like 50 games with an acc mod and actually crunched numbers and found less than .5% difference.
You remember wron, fago. The accuracy mod is the only mod to use.
This entire game is based around RNG shit, you can't get good at rolling a fucking dice
ever wonder why your BB will miss shit at 5km but nail something at 17? fucking bullshit RNG that rewards randomness not skill
except the 5% is a multiplier
so say you had a 50% chance to cause flooding, 5% of 50 is 2.5
so thats a 2.5% reduction which means the torp has a 47.5% chance of causing flooding or otherwise virtually no difference because the slav math is retarded and shit
percentages should always be multipliers
otherwise you're talking about percentage points and that's silly because you get things like Demo Expert which is way way too powerful on low fire chance shells.
>percentages should always be multipliers
except when your multiplier means jack shit
its why the Damage Control upgrade literally doesn't do anything because 3% reduction on chance of fire changes a 20% chance to cause fire to a 19.4% which is virtually nothing.
Bonuses should be additive, not multiplicative
the current way they're calculated is absolutely retarded
really? 5% to flooding chance when flooding chance is 50%? thats literally nothing
same with damage control and all the other shit perks that do nothing
Hell I'm willing to bet that the accuracy bonus upgrade does the same shit to the shit RNG modifier
>Maximum dispersion in RNG
Yo chuckle fucks got some dumb ass ideas.
Fucking Koenigsegseggisegseigseggseg engine meme...
I half expected to see a flooding timer.
>be in a karlsruhe
>get hit by some NY way the fuck out of range
>the AP shells just happened to plink off but it threw out my steering, my propeller, disabled one of my torp tubes and completely disabled one of my guns
At being farmed.
Abrach pls, I know you love waifu bote, but in this game, everyone is using her. Shes just a damage farm for good players.
>I know you love waifu bote, but in this game, everyone is using her
btw, one of the reasons not to grind for shimakaze
when everybody uses her, why do you need that slutty bote, get gearing/khabarovsk instead
ITS BALANCED OK STOP BEGGING WANT FUN JOIN THE NAVY
I'm not Abrach
But If that fellow loves Hotel as much as I do, he must have pretty damn good taste.
And pretty good stats, from what I see on his profile.
>some Yamato takes a pot shot from the southern end of Fault Line at my Amagi on the northern end of Fault Line
>I take a bazillion citpens and die instantly
I think the both of us went "lol" in battlechat.
>Omaha: 68,629 average damage
>Cleveland: 52,228 average damage
>Pepsicola: 50,479 average damage
>N'awlins: 44,144 average damage
Uh... I don't think that's how it's supposed to go, Abrach...
>Closed Beta statistics
Huh. When did that get put there on your player stats page?
>pick wrong flank
>never get within range of an enemy ship until they're all dead, or your whole team is dead and its 8 enemy ships coming after you
this is some horseshit
Hotel a fairest Maiden.
With the exception of Cleveland, those are pretty solid stats.
And as >>121107075 points out, New Orleans is pretty bad.
Pepsi is better at T8 than New Orleans would be at T7.
>It's just a better South Carolina.
Colorado Final Hull ingame.
>thirty-three 20 mm Oerlikon
>thirty-four 40 mm Bofors
>eight 5"/25 AA canon
Colorado Final Wartime refit.
>thirty-three 20 mm Oerlikon
>forty 40 mm Bofors
>eight 5"/25 AA canon
Only problem is that since they ignored the West Virginia hull, Colorado only has 89 mm of deck armor.
Enjoy those long range deck penetrations and AP bombs.
I wish they had at least gone with Maryland's final refit, which was pic related. Not as ridiculous as West Virginia, but still better than what we have now.
>my face when finding out about the AA gun on Tirpitz's #2 turret
I think I'm gonna throw up.
Many ships aspire to be Hotel themselves, but not many can meet the requirements.
>tfw I wasn't a CVnt in CBT
I miss the pre-nerf speedslut
Only Colorado players will understand this image.
Hotel posting is the best kind of posting.
>you will never be as much of a drain on national resources as Hotel
>You'll never be a glorified, oversized and expensive waste of a battlecruiser.
>you will never be reactivated by Reagan because of ruskies
You know what was really a waste, though? The Alaska-class CBs.
>you will never be able to launch Tomahawks and shell targets over 40 years after being put into commission.
>you will never have 8 super-dreadnought museum ships.
>you will never
win a war
>You'll never be reactivated in a stunt to impress a crumbling block, only to be mothballed once again in less than a decade.
>16" shell hits the broadside of a Myoko at 8km
>bounces for 0 damage
>explain rng in torpedos
5 torpedoes hit, torp damage is 6167 each. Divide the damage by 5, and each one did something like 3k+
So yeah, torpedoes a shit.
>you'll never have an entire class of your most powerful battleship become museums for the entire country to visit far into the future.
>tfw 230k profit thanks to missions.
Seriously this is ezpz
>Torpedo bulges actually working as intended
Prem ship, or would it go in a "fuck if I know where this ship belongs" line with Scharnhorst, Graf Spee, and the like?
>there are people in this game that dont at least try strike loadout on US CVs
I got lectured earlier on how i should be using the fighter loadout and only the fighter loadout while in my independence. I went on to score the second highest XP in game and the guy that was lecturing me was second lowest.
Never before have I ever had to question or worry about torpedo damage, because IJN and USN destroyers tend to nuke things they get torp hits on.
Only now, with these russian DD's and their terrible damage torpedoes, has this become an issue to my attention.
>implying i get just one good game
I usually am near the top with the strike loadout, i tried the fighter loadout for a few games, but i didnt like it and i felt like i was doing nothing for the team. However with strike, i can provide better support for my ships.
IJN and USN rarely do.
See that 0.45x consistent damage affecting the first threshold?
A Shimakaze does 17k damage per torpedo, that's with ingame stats. For the second threshold, it's 0.45x of 17k per torpedo which drastically reduces the damage.
First threshold is also reached fast, like a few shells is enough to get the section into it's first threshold.
>Scharnshort as tier 7 BB
>9 11" guns vs 8 16" guns
>Deutschlands as tier 6 CA
Eh. I just don't see how you make a tier 6 cruiser with 11" guns. I guess it's slow and lightly armored, so that's how you'd balance it.
>Alaskas as tier 7 CA (or did you mean BB?)
...This thing is over 3x heavier than Pensacolas with 12" main batteries versus 8" guns, while carrying more AA armament and doing 33 knots.
That's a "no". Might be an interesting alternative to the Colorado, though.
>>Scharnshort as tier 7 BB
>9 11" guns vs 8 16" guns
the same armor as Bismarck, with rapid fire 11" guns that actually have decent penetration, and it does 30 knots
>Eh. I just don't see how you make a tier 6 cruiser with 11" guns. I guess it's slow and lightly armored, so that's how you'd balance it.
you answered your own question
>...This thing is over 3x heavier than Pensacolas with 12" main batteries versus 8" guns, while carrying more AA armament and doing 33 knots.
>That's a "no". Might be an interesting alternative to the Colorado, though.
any higher and its completely useless as anything but an AA boat...kinda like the current US cruisers
>Scharnshort as tier 7 BB
>9 11" guns vs 8 16" guns
3.5 RPM, very high velocity
Much larger displacement than Colorado, slightly less than North Carolina
Thicker belt than Nagato
Faster than... any BB sub-T9
So, yes, T7.
>IJN and USN rarely do
I dunno, my experience has been consistent kills at every tier I've played, but keep in mind thats up until 5.
My Clemson tends grab consistant torp nukes against BB's, and every IJN DD I've played tends to kill what it hits. That has led me to believe that depending on what I'm hitting, I'm going to kill it, assuming the right amount of torpedoes hit...a CV only needs 2 to 4, a BB at least 3 to 5, and a DD around 2. Cruisers tend to up at the 3 to 5 rate, depending.
Hitting ships with torpedoes in a russian DD relies on a fairly suicide approach - usually its worth it if the target dies, but if it doesn't, your completely fucked.
is the reason she's tanned compared to her sister.. that she actually gets out now and again?
At that tier, everything doesn't have much HP.
And I said wrongly, the Shimakaze has 20k damage torpedoes.
0.45x of 20k damage torps are 9k and compared to a Yamato with 97k HP, that's nothing.
>any higher and its completely useless as anything but an AA boat...kinda like the current US cruisers
USN CAs need their guns fixed, sure, but it's completely overpowered compared to the rest of the USN CA line. Who the fuck would want to captain Pensacola if you have Alaska as an option?
The thing has a fucking 9" belt. At tier 7, it's overpowered even compared to the IJN CA line. And before you go "muh torpedoes" at me, the strength of the IJN CAs are its shell velocity/trajectory and the citpen potential of its 8" AP rounds, which would be pretty much negated by a 9" belt.
Yeah, not even going to mention her.
>grinding USN CA line
>Cleveland --> Alaska --> New Orleans
>tfw New Orleans
Isn't Alaska technically a battlecruiser?
Battlecruisers are technically BB line, until they split into their own line.
Ya know, I hope this game lives long enough to see full tech lines.
DL (Destroyer Leader)
C (Protected Cruiser)
CL (Light Cruiser)
CA (Heavy Cruiser)
CVE (Escort Carrier)
CV (Fleet Carrier)
flooding isn't just like fire
its super fucking fire, if you don't or can't repair it, it'll cause so much fucking damage its obscene, 2 minutes of losing thousands of health per second
Been used to seeing the images/renders of citadel weak points in red.
>New level of USN Suffering
Actually the changes with the update/patch are to address the horribly low damage of flooding at high tiers. (going to be 40% bleed at all tiers if allowed to go the full duration.)
>North Carolina is a battlecruiser
>Iowa is a battlecruiser
>maybe it will get someone this time
and Babbies fucking complain about what HE does to them
Hotel is no Battlecruiser. Hotel is a delicious, healthy Battleship.
>I'm enjoying the game!
North Carolina's armor was restricted by the treaty, not by how fast she needed to go. Same with the SoDaks.
All three of those ships were designed before the 2700 pound shell was a thing. they were meant to be protected from the lighter 2100 pound shell (which they were in the designed immunity zone).
Even Yamato wasn't immune at any practical range from the 2700 pound shell.
If it goes fast, its a battlecruiser :^ )
Nagato sacrificed belt armor so she could make 26 knots. That's why is was only 12" thick.
Yamato could have had 20" of armor if the Japanese didn't want to make her go fast :^ ).
>If it goes fast, its a battlecruiser :^ )
Speed has nothing to do with the classification of what is a battlecruiser or a battleship
some of the largest dreadnoughts in WWI and even Bismark would be battlecruisers then
I don't even understand why people think fast battleship/battlecruiser is an insult to the ship. It's not like it magically makes it worse somehow.
Regardless, I would stick with whatever the respective country that built them designated them as.
Fuck you England, Graf Spee was not a "pocket battleship" you dumb cunts.
1) Did your big, heavy, highly armed and armored ship sink embarrassingly in explosive fashion while engaged against Germans?
Y ---> Battlecruiser
N ---> proceed to question #2
2) Can it keep up with a carrier air group?
Y ---> Fast Battleship
N ---> Battleship
>Italy broke the treaty rules to retain armor and speed (and ended up with terrible ships)
>Japan broke the treaty rules to retain armor and speed (and nearly bankrupted the entire Navy)
>Germany broke the treaty rules to retain armor and speed (and got shitty ships out of it)
>Russia tried to break the treaty rules, but discovered that they couldn't actually make a battleship worth a fuck
>England followed the treaty rules (but fucked up and got shitty ships)
>the US followed the treaty rules and got ships that were a great mix of protection, mobility, speed, range and firepower
>much bigger than before, better deck armoring, more and bigger guns
>but the belt is 1.5 inches thinner than it was before, so its a battlecruiser)))))
The US and Bongland were the only ones who stuck with it to the end.
The Bongs got some terrible ships, but the US somehow still ended up with better designs within the limitations than the countries that broke it.
Fast Battleship is literally another way of saying Battlecruiser though, you kek. Just like Dreadnoughts are battleships.
Not Really, Fast Battleships retain heavy armor and armament, but are also quicker than normal super-dreadnought battleships.
A 12" belt is not thin or light. a 6-7 inch deck is not thin or light. Nine 16" guns in turrets with 20" faces is not a light armament.
>Fast Battleships retain heavy armor
>and got ships that were a great mix of protection, mobility, speed, range and firepower
90% of the pacific was won by aircraft carriers, while every other nation there focused more on battleships and cruisers.
>90% of the pacific was won by aircraft carriers, while every other nation there focused more on battleships and cruisers.
What does that have to do with the design of the ships themselves.
you are mighty fucking funny indeed
The Lexington class were the only battlecruisers ever laid down by the USN and were assigned hull series numbers CC-1 to CC-6. When construction was suspended following the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922, the first two of these ships were then completed as aircraft carriers USS Lexington CV-2 and USS Saratoga CV-3. The Alaska class of the 1940s were designated as Large Cruisers and assigned hull series numbers CB-1 to CB-6. The USN did not considered these ships to be battlecruisers.
Why doesnt the "armor" tab in WoWS simply list things like "belt", "barbette", "turret face", etc?
Who the fuck cares about casemate armoring when like more than half the fucking botes in this game have no casemate mounted guns?
My point is the other nations relied heavily on battleships and cruisers, so we know exactly how they held up when put to the test, rather than just design. We saw most of their biggest and baddest that ultimately was sunk.
The Iowa for example, only ever took damage from a hurricane. Similar to the behemoths of other nations she had very little to no actual combat against surface vessels, instead largely just AA, which Iowa was really good at.
Looking at a design of a ship can't give you the results actual combat would.
Huh, according to the Royal Navy, the Queen Elizabeth class was considered a fast battleship when first produced. They were even put in their own "Fast Squadron".
I guess that makes Warspite a battlecruiser...
Well, Iowa did at least sink Katori.
It's something I guess.
South Dakota and Washington also saw direct surface combat against enemy capital ships. SoDak had an unfortunate power failure that led to her just sitting there being shot for ten minutes by everything from 6" to 14" guns and came away with only superficial damage that was repaired in a few months time.
And Washington raped the shit out of Kirishima.
I would say they worked rather well, none of them sank.
>take shot from enemy
>take another shot
>wait for DC
>immediately take another shot
Welp, that's an entire nation into the trash.