ive been ammoracked numerous times through main belt at close range by 16inches from south dakota which has similar performance to the 41CM of Mutsu and other 41 ships from my experince it happens
its only good in close range against lower ships like 8.0
other than that you should just camp behind a island
it can very easily happen and unlike every other ship in game its immediate death not like south dakota who can be ammo racked in every turret and live literally a cutscene death
unlike every other 8.3 ship you also cant angle it due to zero bow armor its literally one of the most hopeless ships ever as you constantly face south dakotas and iowas and soyuz
1 Like
I have the same expirence the ship it self makes a lot of fun it just sitz in the wrong Environment :(
Or its just to late to the party for it to be one of the top 8.3 Ships.
1 Like
This isn’t completely true; the bow plate is mostly fine, the magazine protector plate is absolutely abysmal - But this is a thing for most of the german BBs in general so it might as well be the exact same thing.
At least Bismarck doesn’t suffer like the Littorios who have a third of the firerate. Not that they should.
7.3s can kill her just as easily as 8.7s at range. I’ve legit survived longer at close range broadsiding than angling.
I am, however, in agreement that she does need a bit more survivability.
I was reading ‘Rotterdam, Oorlogshaven’ by Jac. J. Baart, specifically the bit about the K class, and I came across the following:
“Een tegen Tiefflieger in de mast gemonteerde vlammenwerper bleek later onbruikbaar.”
roughly translated, they fitted a flamethrower against divebombers in one of the masts (it didnt work)
Now besides the complete craziness of an AA flamethrower, has anybody ever read/seen anything about something like this?
I have vague memories of bombers with flamethrowers in lieu of a tailgunner but this one caught me by surprise
The sheer impracticality of an Anti Air flamethrower is only dwarfed by how much drugs the creators of such a concept were taking.
1 Like
The British tested a ‘Naval pattern vertical firing flame thrower’ aboard the converted French fishing vessel ‘La Patrie’.
A pilot flew repeated approaches at increasingly lower altitudes. The results were pretty much as expected - visually impressive, but not really something to fear unless you were cutting grass with your prop on the wrong heading.
Not seen pics of the sea test, but there are a couple of the ground based equipment:
The US did of course have LCM Zippos in Vietnam. And I’ve heard the rumours of the German program but hard evidence is lacking.
every german super project was fueled by very non sober engineers so everyone at this time was doing stuff which is why we have such wacky or insane vehicles such as MAUS or T28
1 Like
At least it only entered testing, found not to work at all and then just never bothered with it.
Even though anyone with a bit of common sense could easily understand ‘there’s no way this’d work’ with next to no time wasted.
The T28/T95 wasn’t exactly ‘insane’ or ‘wacky’. They were designed to break through bunkers and heavy fortifications. They weren’t ready by the time the war ended to even test how effective their role would even be.
Although their horrid speed would make them easy to disable or even take out with artillery/planes.
Similar issue with the Maus. On land; yeah, practically impervious to most things american armored vehicles had. Realistically; easily outmaneuvered, air striked or taken out via artillery.